Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:21 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Thank you for sharing, Deborah. Your site looks interesting. Sangraal, of course, means "holy grail." There certainly is much holy grail lore, including from pre-Christian times.

If you haven't done so already, you may wish to read the writings of Barbara G. Walker as concerns the true meaning of the grail cup and its "blood," which symbolize the womb and menstruation.

I have published a book of hers in which she discusses these issues, Man Made God. She does likewise in her other great works, such as The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:16 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:09 am
Posts: 7
Wow. Well after looking through two pages of cruciforms and images of deities/personages with outstretched arms, one thing was proven to my mind for sure: you guys really don't have any evidence for any pre-Christian use of the crucifix as a religious symbol. Oh yeah, the Egyptian cross on top of a heart - symbolizes the throat and heart, etc - the Catholics might use that, but it has no relation to Christian origins.

Ixion is tied (not crucified) to an ever-spinning wheel which goes across the heavens; not really a parallel except for the pictures that the ever-believing conspiracy theorists will certainly not reject just because someone...stretched their arms. Don't get a hold of Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian/Renaissance Man, boy then Christianity is in real trouble!



SangraalTruth wrote:
Interesting research on the crosses, very helpful, thank you, it proved a theory I'd been tracking in my own research. The cross is an ancient symbol for a very ancient sacred royal bloodline and religion before the fall of Jerusalem. Most gods before that time were all deified related blood royalty in real life (ala Egypt), and sometimes they would sacrifice themselves for the good of their people. They were pure believers in a single god and were pacifists, shared their belongings and gave away their wealth to help the sick and needy. They were incredibly wealthy kings, queens, princesses and princes who owned massive mining and trade rights and fleets of high tech ships and private military. The cross they would wear on their foreheads to let people know who they were and not to harm them (ala Mark of Cain), later worn on the chest due to persecution. They were openly persecuted and sent underground since Herod to 1809, for their wealth and power. Orpheus Bachus, Barrabas, crucified by the Romans on the plains below Masada, circa 66 AD, was the son of the last rightful King of Jerusalem. (And possibly the shroud of Turin's real owner as all persons of genuine royal blood where considered sacred and holy, even to Romans.) But that's only a tiny little mircron of the story, and the intrigue surrounding it is still going on today. I've been researching it for the past few years and share research with several descendants. My research project is at http://www.sangraaltruth.com http://www.sangraaltruth.com
Deborah


Attachments:
File comment: Another crucified man...without a cross...or nails...or anything.
X.GIF
X.GIF [ 72.32 KiB | Viewed 1371 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:54 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Quote:
Ixion is tied (not crucified) to an ever-spinning wheel which goes across the heavens; not really a parallel except for the pictures that the ever-believing


Actually, in Euripides version- yes he was. http://books.google.com/books?id=H8AOBxeXy0gC&pg=PA53&dq#v=onepage&q=%22nailed%20him%20to%20the%20wheel%22&f=false

"Yet I did not take him off the stage until I had nailed him to the wheel"

Even Roman crucifixion, the crucifixion applied to Jesus, did not always use nails. Or manufactured crosses. Sometimes they were just nailed to a tree still growing in the ground. Sometimes just tied to such a tree. Saves on time and resources, I guess.

Image
Image

I suppose one could indeed argue there is no parallel to Ixion and others depending on where one draws the line, for instance, you seem to draw your line at the use of nails over rope. That's your prerogative, but do note that several ancient writers who lived at the time the Romans used crucifixion did not so narrowly define crucifixion that way, for example, Josephus refers to the butler Joseph told would be hung on a tree and eaten by birds as a crucifixion, same word he used for Roman crucifixion.

But more relevant here is that even Jesus himself, as well as Paul, made parallels to Christ's crucifixion that are even less similar than Ixion. Jesus draws a parallel between his crucifixion and Moses putting the bronze serpent on a staff. Paul draws a parallel with it to the Old Testament law of post-humously hanging stoned criminals on a tree until sunset. Church Father Justin Martyr compared it to roasting the Passover lamb on wooden spits. Etc. and so on. While Martyr is far later and far less authoritative, Jesus and Paul did make the canon and so, you know, if it's good for the goose...

I guess. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
This person's comments above are simply absurd and a reflection of his own ignorance. As such, they can be ignored.

The Pre-Christian 'God' on a Cross

In the meantime, for those who are not insensate, not only does this massive thread prove the pre-Christian motif of gods, goddesses and numerous others in cruciform, but we also have what is evidently a pre-Christian god on a cross in the Orpheos Bakkikhos image.

Image

My ebook on this subject is fairly thorough and contains numerous images, as well as quotes from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Minucius Felix and others.

One is welcome to obtain my ebook here:

A Pre-Christian 'God' on a Cross?

Image

The tropaeum or Roman "trophy" itself (as in my cover image above) is a pre-Christian crucifix symbol of both power and, in the case of Caesar, divinity. Here is an excerpt from the ebook above:

Quote:
Tertullian

Tropaea also are meant by the reference to cruciform "trophies" in Tertullian's Apology (16), in speaking to the Romans:

Quote:
We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses.

The Latin text of Tertullian's Apologeticum (16.6-8) is:

Diximus originem deorum vestrorum a plastis de cruce induci. Sed et victorias adoratis, cum in tropaeis cruces intestina sint tropaeorum. Religio Romanorum tota castrensis signa veneratur, signa iurat, signa omnibus deis praeponit. Omnes illi imaginum suggestus in signis monilia crucum sunt; siphara illa vexillorum et cantabrorum stolae crucum sunt.

Note the Roman Church father uses a form of the word tropaeum twice here (bolded).

Minucius

Minucius Felix uses the word tropaeum in his Octavius (20.6-7), in which he denies Christian reverence of the cross and asserts that, on the contrary, it is the Romans who adore the sacred object:

Quote:
Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.

The original Latin is:

Cruces etiam nec colimus nec optamus. vos plane, qui ligneos deos consecratis, cruces ligneas ut deorum vestrorum partes forsitan adoratis. Nam et signa ipsa et cantabra et vexilla castrorum quid aliud quam inauratae cruces sunt et ornatae? Tropaea vestra victricia non tantum simplicis crucis faciem, verum et adfixi hominis imitantur.

If these Church fathers felt inclined to make such comparisons, we are wise to do the same, as we have throughout this thread. In consideration of these facts, it appears that the Pozzuoli Crucifix (1st cent. AD/CE?) is a tropaeum, possibly of a gladiator.

Image

Making disingenuous remarks reflecting one's ignorance of a subject matter proves nothing but the dishonesty and denial of the commenter/apologist, obviously attempting to distract away from the facts and truth. Those who want to learn about ancient religion and mythology without such willful prejudices and pretentious blinders, will certainly benefit from this entire thread as well as my ebook.

The reality is that there is little doubt the Christian crucifixion motif was taken from pre-Christian religious and mythological concepts. In this regard, I have entire chapters devoted to this subject, as in Christ in Egypt concerning Horus, Anubis and others in cruciform. In this discussion, it should be recalled that the cross as a sacred symbol dates back many thousands of years and was regularly used to depict divinity, especially solar deities, long before the common era. In order to know these facts, one actually needs to study the subject in depth, drawing from or utilizing numerous ancient sources in a variety of languages, as I have done for the past several decades.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:51 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:09 am
Posts: 7
GodAlmighty wrote:
Quote:
Ixion is tied (not crucified) to an ever-spinning wheel which goes across the heavens; not really a parallel except for the pictures that the ever-believing


Actually, in Euripides version- yes he was. http://books.google.com/books?id=H8AOBxeXy0gC&pg=PA53&dq#v=onepage&q=%22nailed%20him%20to%20the%20wheel%22&f=false

"Yet I did not take him off the stage until I had nailed him to the wheel"

Even Roman crucifixion, the crucifixion applied to Jesus, did not always use nails. Or manufactured crosses. Sometimes they were just nailed to a tree still growing in the ground. Sometimes just tied to such a tree. Saves on time and resources, I guess.

Image
Image


Even with alternate traditions where Ixion is nailed, that's still not a parallel that depicts a pre-Christian use of crucifixion in religion. Ixion being nailed is simply being nailed to a wheel that spins, not a cross. The Romans used nails for crucifixion, so it's hardly a mythological origin. And I am well aware that the Romans and Persians crucified on trees as well as crosses, but that doesn't make this a parallel.

Quote:
I suppose one could indeed argue there is no parallel to Ixion and others depending on where one draws the line, for instance, you seem to draw your line at the use of nails over rope. That's your prerogative, but do note that several ancient writers who lived at the time the Romans used crucifixion did not so narrowly define crucifixion that way, for example, Josephus refers to the butler Joseph told would be hung on a tree and eaten by birds as a crucifixion, same word he used for Roman crucifixion.


I don't draw the line at being nailed - that was just the smallest thing that didn't even match up, but I draw the line at the fact that there is no cross. Josephus and others may have described crucifixion as being hung on a tree, but that doesn't go the other way around - being hung on something doesn't equal crucifixion. Kind of like all acute triangles are triangles, but not all triangles are acute.

Quote:
But more relevant here is that even Jesus himself, as well as Paul, made parallels to Christ's crucifixion that are even less similar than Ixion. Jesus draws a parallel between his crucifixion and Moses putting the bronze serpent on a staff. Paul draws a parallel with it to the Old Testament law of post-humously hanging stoned criminals on a tree until sunset. Church Father Justin Martyr compared it to roasting the Passover lamb on wooden spits. Etc. and so on. While Martyr is far later and far less authoritative, Jesus and Paul did make the canon and so, you know, if it's good for the goose...

I guess. Image


Jesus was employing a pesher with Moses' bronze serpent, which was actually put up on a pole and stretched up high. This is a typology, and one that is much closer than anything I've seen posted in this thread, except for the post-Christian Orpheus forgery. Paul draws a parallel only because crucifixion could be described as being "hung on a tree". However, nobody could actually argue that being hung on a tree is the same as being crucified - it's simply a metaphor. The same goes for Justin Martyr and the rest - they were simply using allegory, not literal examples. This thread tries to find literal examples, and not allegory, which obviously couldn't have been the same when the cultures never used crucifixion in the first place. If you have a culture that had a cult that worshipped a crucified god, only then can you use their cruciforms or whatever to convincingly try to prove they are crucified representations - and even then you'd need evidence because of the fact that cruciforms are so common (such as Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:09 am
Posts: 7
Acharya wrote:
This person's comments above are simply absurd and a reflection of his own ignorance. As such, they can be ignored.


Oh yeah, I'm the ignorant one. It's not like you aren't look under every rock and next to every tree for two twigs that look like a cross so you can claim that even the trees have a religion based on worshipping crucifixes.

Quote:
The Pre-Christian 'God' on a Cross

In the meantime, for those who are not insensate, not only does this massive thread prove the pre-Christian motif of gods, goddesses and numerous others in cruciform, but we also have what is evidently a pre-Christian god on a cross in the Orpheos Bakkikhos image.

Image


Not only does this thread not prove anything besides the fact that people were able to make sculptures and paintings of outstretched arms (like Horus holding the sky or whatever), the Orpheus image is post-Christian as someone has already noted in this thread. The excuse was that "Christianity hadn't touched in every part of the world like it still hasn't today." Yeah but that's certainly not going to work especially since by 250 Christians were famous enough to be persecuted on the imperial scale, so...most likely based on Christianity's popularity.

Quote:
My ebook on this subject is fairly thorough and contains numerous images, as well as quotes from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Minucius Felix and others.


Yeah, I ordered your books where I expect to find more of these pseudo-crucifixion images. As for quotes, you confuse allegory of early Church writers with....actual crucifixes.

Quote:
One is welcome to obtain my ebook here:

The tropaeum or Roman "trophy" itself (as in my cover image above) is a pre-Christian crucifix symbol of both power and, in the case of Caesar, divinity.


A tropaeum is in NO way a crucifix - it was a deity on a stick, sometimes with shields on both sides which for you is a crucifix just because the arms (which are super short) are outstretched (to hold a shield, not because they're crucified).


Quote:
Here is an excerpt from the ebook above:

Quote:
Tertullian

Tropaea also are meant by the reference to cruciform "trophies" in Tertullian's Apology (16), in speaking to the Romans:

Quote:
We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses.

The Latin text of Tertullian's Apologeticum (16.6-8) is:

Note the Roman Church father uses a form of the word tropaeum twice here (bolded).


Well, Tertullian is definitely trying to desperately connect the Romans with Christianity. I believe he is much more successful than you, but he is still riddle with analogies that simply don't work. You do know that he could be wrong, right? Kind of how you should know that you can be wrong as well. Tertullian's testimony here should in no way be considered a pre-Christian use of the cross for several strong factors:

1) The pagans were already making fun of the Christians for using the cross in religious worship. This makes any objects that bear a resemblance to the cross unintentional coincidences which Tertullian is pointing out that the pagans hadn't noticed. After all, the cross is a very common design/image as all of the pictures in this thread have shown.
2) Tertullian says in the same passage (Apologeticus 16): "for he that worships any piece of timber is guilty of the thing charged upon us [the cross]" - do you think anyone whose religion associates itself with timber associates itself with a cross too? Don't think so.
3) Tertullian says: "There is not an image you erect
but resembles a cross in part; so that we who worship an entire
cross, if we do worship it, methinks have much the better on it of
you who worship but half a cross." So anything can look like part of a cross to him.
4) The passage you quoted refers to the shape of the standard (obviously a cross), which Tertullian calls fully clothed.

So, no parallel here except Tertullian trying to desperately embarass the Romans into calling them cross-worshippers. He also admits that the tropaeon is nothing but a pole:

Quote:
but you likewise adore your
goddess Victoria in this form, for crosses are the inward part of
this deity, your trophies being only poles laid across, and covered
over with the spoils of the enemy.



Quote:
Minucius

Minucius Felix uses the word tropaeum in his Octavius (20.6-7), in which he denies Christian reverence of the cross and asserts that, on the contrary, it is the Romans who adore the sacred object:

Quote:
Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.

The original Latin is:

Cruces etiam nec colimus nec optamus. vos plane, qui ligneos deos consecratis, cruces ligneas ut deorum vestrorum partes forsitan adoratis. Nam et signa ipsa et cantabra et vexilla castrorum quid aliud quam inauratae cruces sunt et ornatae? Tropaea vestra victricia non tantum simplicis crucis faciem, verum et adfixi hominis imitantur.

If these Church fathers felt inclined to make such comparisons, we are wise to do the same, as we have throughout this thread. In consideration of these facts, it appears that the Pozzuoli Crucifix (1st cent. AD/CE?) is a tropaeum, possibly of a gladiator.

Image


Same thing as Tertullian's uses and misuses of these pagan symbols - analogies that have gone too far.

Quote:
Making disingenuous remarks reflecting one's ignorance of a subject matter proves nothing but the dishonesty and denial of the commenter/apologist, obviously attempting to distract away from the facts and truth. Those who want to learn about ancient religion and mythology without such willful prejudices and pretentious blinders, will certainly benefit from this entire thread as well as my ebook.


If I am the dishonest one, then who are you when you can't even tell when an author such as Tertullian is making void comparisons between Roman religious symbols and Christian ones? In fact, you're not dishonest. I think you're just blinded by your desire to have some kind of connection between Christianity and any pagan religion, no matter how vague. That's a true blinder right there, if you would just take a step back and look at reality with sober eyes, you'd have a hard time believing even yourself!

Quote:
The reality is that there is little doubt the Christian crucifixion motif was taken from pre-Christian religious and mythological concepts. In this regard, I have entire chapters devoted to this subject, as in Christ in Egypt concerning Horus, Anubis and others in cruciform. In this discussion, it should be recalled that the cross as a sacred symbol dates back many thousands of years and was regularly used to depict divinity, especially solar deities, long before the common era. In order to know these facts, one actually needs to study the subject in depth, drawing from or utilizing numerous ancient sources in a variety of languages, as I have done for the past several decades.


Bottom line is cruciforms are not crucifixes, and neither are vague parallels. Doesn't matter how many decades you have spent trying to make the two the same, they won't be. The reality is that you haven't shown one pre-Christian use of the crucifix as a religious symbol, nor does it matter that the cross (a pretty common symbol) was used for thousands of years - crucifixion was not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Quote:
Even with alternate traditions where Ixion is nailed, that's still not a parallel that depicts a pre-Christian use of crucifixion in religion. Ixion being nailed is simply being nailed to a wheel that spins, not a cross.

The bringing up of Ixion being nailed was for correction, since you contrasted “not crucified” against “was tied.” As for parallels and pre-christian crucifixes in religion, that was not brought up or addressed by me, so I’ll forward that to the parties concerned or return to sender. But evidently I will do so momentarily below.
Quote:
The Romans used nails for crucifixion, so it's hardly a mythological origin.

Indeed. And I don’t recall anyone here even alluding to as much, just as I don’t recalling anyone here claiming that wheels are of mythological origin either. Hell, I think it’s safe to say we’re all agreed here that there was no literal crucifixon of Orpheus, or the Bacchus he’s imitating, who was actually crucified at some point in history (though there could have been *shrug*) but concluding as much hardly means we think that extrapolates into Roman crucifixion being mythological in origin.
Quote:
And I am well aware that the Romans and Persians crucified on trees as well as crosses, but that doesn't make this a parallel.


Indeed, nor was that used to argue for a parallel, it was used to show crucifixion is not so narrowly defined and that simply being tied rather than nailed does not exempt one from being classified as "crucified".

Quote:
I don't draw the line at being nailed - that was just the smallest thing that didn't even match up, but I draw the line at the fact that there is no cross.

And as I said that's fine and your prerogative and all, Ixion=cross or crucifixion was certainly no claim of mine, but since you are also concerning yourself with parallels here (e.g. “not a parallel”, “doesn’t make this a parallel”), that subject isn’t limited to such narrow parameters. We’ve always been on the same page that wheel=/=cross, but I had gotten the impression that this topic was extending beyond just that.
Quote:
Josephus and others may have described crucifixion as being hung on a tree, but that doesn't go the other way around - being hung on something doesn't equal crucifixion. Kind of like all acute triangles are triangles, but not all triangles are acute.

But that instance I told you about was the other way around, he didn’t describe Roman crucifixion as being hung on a tree, he described “being hung on something” as a crucifixion, namely being hung on a tree (and eaten by birds). I don’t think Josephus used (nor did I imply that he used) the term crucifixion to just mean hang anything on another anything, like “oh, hung your washed clothes on a tree branch to dry? They’ve been crucified!” The point was simply that even the people who lived in that culture, same culture as the New Testament authors, didn’t so narrowly define the word the way you do here. That’s easy for us today to get sucked into doing here after the fact with so many centuries for the term to evolve that way and after so much saturation of the Christian culture upon the world we grew up in. But more to the point of my having even brought up Josephus in the first place- I don’t have any reason to think that 1st century authors, including the New Testament authors, understood the term as exclusively as yourself, nor do I think they limited themselves to exclusively Jewish or secular Roman influences. Hell, Paul even quotes verbatim from pagan poems about Zeus and drew parallels from that to the Christian God, so he clearly was not immune to the influence and direct borrowing from the pagan culture available to him.
Quote:
Jesus was employing a pesher with Moses' bronze serpent, which was actually put up on a pole and stretched up high. This is a typology, and one that is much closer than anything I've seen posted in this thread, except for the post-Christian Orpheus forgery. Paul draws a parallel only because crucifixion could be described as being "hung on a tree". However, nobody could actually argue that being hung on a tree is the same as being crucified - it's simply a metaphor. The same goes for Justin Martyr and the rest - they were simply using allegory, not literal examples.

This was all moot as my entire point was that they made a parallel to earlier motifs, which they did. And I certainly disagree with assessing the bronze serpent on a pole to be closer in resemblance to a Roman crucifixion than Ixion or other such images. Anyway, the point in bringing any of that up is that it demonstrates that the authors of the New Testament admitted to being influenced by pre-christian literature and imagery (in this particular example, the Old Testament) and that they did not mind creating parallels to those things in their own stories. I don’t get the impression that anyone here was arguing that the New Testament authors saw a picture of Ixion and thought “oh I gotta use that one!” I for one certainly don’t think so. Rather, I think what’s being proposed is that there was a common archetype that existed in pre-christian lore that involved portraying a protagonist in such a manner, much like how in today’s culture it’s common to put a superhero in tights and a cape even though they aren’t all necessarily copying Superman or any one particular superhero that came before them. There was a wide selection to choose from if an author were so inclined. Roman crucifixion wouldn’t have to have been a myth fabricated by a first century Jew. It was simply a convenient motif already available which paralleled a commonly known archetype, much like the case with post-christian parallels, for example- I think the following image is conspicuously trying to parallel Roman crucifixion, and if we contacted the artist I’m confident in guessing s/he will admit to having had Jesus in mind when developing the concept. Just because I for one happen to think this image is entirely fictional and never historically happened and that it is deliberately paralleling the crucifixion of Christ does not mean that I think power line poles are mythical in origin or that I am saying power line poles=Roman crucifixion. It’s just that power poles already exist and already bear a resemblance to the Roman/Christian cross and thus is conveniently already available for the artist to use without having to conjure up something of his/her own.
Image
http://gjsx51.deviantart.com/art/The-Crucifixion-Experiments-366651283

And hell, sometimes parallels don’t even have to be deliberate, there can even be unconscious influence, such as when the Cohen brothers admitted to being influenced by the Odyssey when penning O Brother, Where Art Thou. As I recall, they said it took them a while to even realize they were following that pattern, and then once they did they ran wild with it. Yet, in spite of them admitting from their own mouths that they both deliberately and unconsciously paralleled the Odyssey with their film, essentially none of those parallels are carbon copies from the source material. John Goodman wearing an eye patch=/=a Cyclops and young ladies doing laundry=/=the siren monster, just as we’re agreed that Ixion nailed to a wheel=/=crucifixion and a serpent on a pole=/=crucifixion. The overarching point here is that if we’re bringing up “parallels” and the influence an earlier work can have on a later work, then it is evident that such parallels don’t have to be carbon copies of each other in order for the parallel to have been both deliberate by the author and conspicuous to the audience. I also think it’s fairly safe to say that this is also part of the overarching theme behind Acharya even starting this thread and writing her books. But I’m gathering you’re not too interested in hashing over that. You clearly want to stick to just hashing out the more specific claim somebody somewhere apparently made of [insert name]=crucifixion, and not so much the broader topic of parallels and potential sources of influence and the like. That’s cool; you and the folks who actually made that claim have fun with that.

So cruciform=/=crucifixion, got it, Roger that. We’re agreed. So if that’s all you wanted to address (at least where I was concerned), then as they say- /thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:41 pm
Posts: 39
You tell them Cornelius!

Quote:
Christianity arose in an absolute divine vacuum
. With a conduit to Yahweh and his consort Asherah.
There was no pre-existing mythology of cultures like the Egyptians,Assyrians,Persians, Greeks etc.. who dominated vast territories to corrupt pure Christianity. All these artifacts of crosses/crucifixes do not compare to the divinely preserved artifacts of Christ and Christianity. We have mountains of archaeological evidence for Christ crucified (We have the Cross itself, divinely preserved, we have the nails - divinely preserved, we have the very loin cloth - divinely preserved, his sandals - also divinely preserved...)

All these other purported crucified figures are mythological and post Christianity. They are not the one and true religion which arose in the divine vacuum.

Continue to be a soldier of Christ,attempting to use reason to defend non-reason, logic to defend the illogical and science to defend the unscientific. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide your heart brother.

It appears that even our brother in Christ Gunnar Samuelsson has written the books of books on Crucifixion:

Quote:
Abstract
This study investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow view of the “crucifixion” terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of “crucify” and “cross,” if by “crucifixion” one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few. The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every wordbook and dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.


Quote:
"I am not saying no 'crucifixions' took place I[sic] the ancient world. But we cannot find evidence of them in the ancient texts," he added.


This fellow brother of Christ has much to say dear Cornelius. It would further the cause of our one and true Saviour if you would avail yourself of his research efforts.

http://www.exegetics.org/Dissertation.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
What I have written above and throughout this thread, as well as in my books, ebooks and articles, about the pre-Christian cross, cruciform and crucifix is solid and scientific enough. There is no need for apologists to continue to hijack this thread with irrational and irrelevant comments.

Tropaeum, Prometheus and Plato

As demonstrated in the post above, the tropaeum clearly depicts a pre-Christian CRUCIFIX, so noticeable that the early church fathers themselves equated it with the Christian cross. Disingenuous denials of this motif, which was adopted into Christianity, will not suffice.

Image

Quote:
cru·ci·fix
1. a cross with the figure of Jesus crucified upon it.
2. any cross.

The tropaeum is a cross/crucifix. The hairsplitting is simply silly and irrelevant.

The story of Prometheus alone serves as evidence of the PRE-CHRISTIAN CRUCIFIX OF A DIVINE FIGURE. Here is another relevant excerpt from A Pre-Christian 'God' on a Cross?:

Quote:
Prometheus Crucified

Centuries before the common era, the Titan Prometheus was portrayed as crucified, as in the image below, which depicts the god as punished using chains, on a red figure vase dating to around 350 BCE.

In his parody of Prometheus's punishment, the poet Lucian of Samosata (c. 125-c. 180 AD/CE) "uses all the technical terms of a crucifixion: Prometheus is to be nailed to two rocks above a ravine in the sight of all, in such a way as to produce the effect of 'a most serviceable cross'..." Lucian's latter description in the original Greek employs the word σταυρός stauros, the same term used in the New Testament to depict Jesus’s stake/cross.

Image

Plato's crucified world soul also proves the existence of this divine crucifixion centuries before the common era. Another excerpt:

Quote:
Plato's World Soul and Just Man

In his Timaeus (36bc), Greek philosopher Plato (429-347 BCE) wrote about a "world soul" in the shape of a cross or X, hanging in space. As I write in Christ in Egypt, Plato's cross-like "world-soul" also represented the orbits of the sun and earth's ecliptic intersecting. This Platonic figure in turn was commonly taken to be a "foreshadowing" of the Christ character and cross. As theologian Rev. Dr. Hugo Rahner states:

Quote:
...Adapting an old Pythagorean notion, Plato had written in the Timaeus of the world soul revealed in the celestial X; to the early Christian this was a pagan imitation of the world-building crucified Logos who encompasses the cosmos and causes it to revolve around the mystery of the Cross.

One of the early Christians who saw the Cross and Son of God revealed in Plato's writing was church father Justin Martyr, who in his First Apology (60.1), in a section entitled "Plato's Doctrine of the Cross," remarked:

Quote:
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses...

The Church fathers insisted that the cross, although pre-Christian, nevertheless was biblical, appearing in the story of the Israelite prophet Moses when he raised his arms and supernaturally directed Israel's victory over the Amalekites.

Centuries before the common era, Plato also discussed a "just man" who is "crucified' (Republic 2.361-362), as related by Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger):

Quote:
...according to Plato the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed, Plato [2.362a] goes so far as to write: "They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering will be crucified." This passage, written four hundred years before Christ, is always bound to move a Christian deeply.

The ex-pope used a translation of Plato specifically rendering the Greek as "crucified" in describing the fate of the "just man," who was given essentially the same treatment as Lycurgus described in Diodorus. This Platonic passage much resembles the "man of sorrows" and "suffering servant" found at Isaiah 53:4-12 and, along with that OT "messianic prophecy," likely was used as a blueprint in the creation of the Christ character. Again, in Platonic philosophy, the "world soul" or "Son of God," as Justin styles it, is impressed upon a cross in the vault of heaven, representing the sun crossing over the ecliptic.

The Greek word used by Plato is ἀνασχινδυλευθήσεται, related to ἀνασκολοπίζω, which means "to fix on a pole or stake, impale." Per Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, ἀνασκολοπίζω "is used convertibly with ἀνασταυρόω," this latter term derived from the same word as stauros, again the term used in the New Testament to describe the "cross" upon which Christ was said to be crucified. Plato's usage of this word, however, predates the common era by four centuries.

To argue that there was no pre-Christian crucifix is simply false. Crucifixion predates Christianity - that is a fact. Gods were depicted in cross-shape AND as crucified, centuries before the common era - that is also a fact. The motif was so common that Christianity's creators needed to incorporate it into their myths.

The naysayers simply do not know what they are talking about - they have not even bothered to read through this thread, and they don't know the information I just provided in the quotes above. They are merely desperate to shore up their faith at all costs, with lies, insults, misdirections, misinformation, strawmen and assorted other fallacies.

The fact will remain that gods and goddesses on crucifixes or in cruciform predate Christianity by many centuries. No amount of shallow, fallacious and erroneous apologetics from vested and emotional interests will change that fact.

We will continue our scientific studies here and cease to be distracted by these fallacies, ad homs and frantic finger-pointing. Christianity is a false religion based on pre-Christian religions and mythology. Nitpicking and trolling will not change that fact. Jesus Christ's crucifixion is a fictional element designed to incorporate the very popular notion of a protective divinity in a cross shape, regardless of whether or not there is a stick through it. The disingenuousness in pretending not to understand these concepts in order to shore up one's flimsy faith is quite tiresome.

If one has no interest in learning about ancient religion and mythology, one is on the wrong forum. In return, I am not interested in hateful and nasty attempts to make us ignorant and to suck us into an archaic false cult. We will also not let puerile insults and utter falsehoods allow this highly important information to be hidden and suppressed again, serving as a gross injustice to pre-Christian peoples. The concept of the divine crucifix is pre-Christian, found in a number of other cultures, and credit must be given where it is due. The idea was essentially pilfered by Christianity, whose adherents then spit on the "pagans" from whom they plagiarized this motif.

Again, not interested in falsehoods based on Christian fanaticism that derogates and falsifies pre-Christian history. Such fallaciousness not only ignores and suppresses real history but it does a great disservice to the ancients.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Here is a repost of commentary I made previously regarding the uses of the word stauros or "cross, stake" in antiquity. Again, this term is the same word used in the New Testament to describe Jesus's "cross."

As we can see, it is a complete and utter falsehood that this term was not used in pre-Christian times. But this is the sort of fallacious disinformation that apologists must toss out in order to shore up their faith at all costs.

Uses in Antiquity of the Greek Word Stauroo, 'To Crucify'

To reiterate, as but one example, the same basic word is used by Diodorus (3.65.5) in the first century BCE to describe the crucifixion of a king by the god Dionysus:

Quote:
τὸν δὲ Διόνυσον περαιώσαντα τὰς δυνάμεις μάχῃ κρατῆσαι τῶν Θρᾳκῶν, καὶ τὸν Λυκοῦργον ζωγρήσαντα τυφλῶσαί τε καὶ πᾶσαν αἰκίαν εἰσενεγκάμενον ἀνασταυρῶσαι

This last word is anastaurosai, from the verb anastauroo, which is derived from the same root as stauros.

The Greek historian Herodotus used some version of the word stauros several times more than four centuries before the common era:

Quote:
book 5, chapter 16: ... καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ κατοικημένους ἐξαιρέειν ὧδε. ἴκρια ἐπὶ σταυρῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐζευγμένα ἐν μέσῃ ἕστηκε τῇ λίμνῃ, ἔσοδον ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου στεινὴν ἔχοντα μιῇ γεφύρῃ. τοὺς δὲ σταυροὺς τοὺς ὑπεστεῶτας τοῖσι ἰκρίοισι τὸ μέν κου ἀρχαῖον ἔστησαν ... τῷ οὔνομα ἐστὶ Ὄρβηλος, κατὰ γυναῖκα ἑκάστην ὁ γαμέων τρεῖς σταυροὺς ὑπίστησι: ἄγεται δὲ ἕκαστος συχνὰς γυναῖκας. οἰκέουσι δὲ

Again, there are many more such usages in antiquity, having nothing to do with Christianity.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:17 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:09 am
Posts: 7
Before this discussion continues, I'd like to point out that as a quiet observer of this forum, I became an active participant because this thread took the cake with respect to parallelomania and the only thing missing for a parallel to Christianity to be posted here, besides Vitruvian Man, was the Toyota symbol. So far, the only person (of the three) who seems to be legitimately interested in a logical and fruitful discussion has been GodAlmighty - the other two (including Acharya) are just posting to reconfirm their illogical beliefs.

GodAlmighty wrote:
Quote:
Even with alternate traditions where Ixion is nailed, that's still not a parallel that depicts a pre-Christian use of crucifixion in religion. Ixion being nailed is simply being nailed to a wheel that spins, not a cross.

The bringing up of Ixion being nailed was for correction, since you contrasted “not crucified” against “was tied.” As for parallels and pre-christian crucifixes in religion, that was not brought up or addressed by me, so I’ll forward that to the parties concerned or return to sender. But evidently I will do so momentarily below.

Quote:
The Romans used nails for crucifixion, so it's hardly a mythological origin.

Indeed. And I don’t recall anyone here even alluding to as much, just as I don’t recalling anyone here claiming that wheels are of mythological origin either. Hell, I think it’s safe to say we’re all agreed here that there was no literal crucifixon of Orpheus, or the Bacchus he’s imitating, who was actually crucified at some point in history (though there could have been *shrug*) but concluding as much hardly means we think that extrapolates into Roman crucifixion being mythological in origin.


It seemed that you were bringing up Ixion as an example of a pre-Christian crucified religious figure. And then that he was nailed. My mistake if that wasn't the case. Bacchus was never crucified, nor any kind of motif related to crucifixion besides being "clunked onto a treek, as you can see from Greek vases such as the one from the 5th century BC. Orpheos Bakkikos does depict a mythological figure that used the historical crucifixion, but it is entirely possible for Jesus to have been crucified historically, whereas Orpheus never existed in the recent past of anyone's writings. Crucifixion was seen as a shame by the Romans and Greeks and to preach a crucified god who is invented is beyond comprehension - there would be no point. Btw, Ixion is given as an example on the first page of this thread of a crucified religious figure, so you can excuse me if I assumed you also launched him as an example of pre-Christian use of the cross, as per the thread's title.

Quote:
Quote:
And I am well aware that the Romans and Persians crucified on trees as well as crosses, but that doesn't make this a parallel.


Indeed, nor was that used to argue for a parallel, it was used to show crucifixion is not so narrowly defined and that simply being tied rather than nailed does not exempt one from being classified as "crucified".


Without a cross, the parallel is nonexistent. There was no motif for anything resembling crucifixion in pre-Christian religion, besides the common cruciform and cross, which are no parallel, and Ixion which proves no motif because for something to be a motif, you need a lot of it to be seen in examples throughout religion - which you don't. You only have Ixion and Bacchus' deaths (in Greco-Roman religion) being related to anything tree-like/wooden. That's simply not enough for a common, popular motif. Also, I know you know this, but just reiterating that being hung on a tree does not equal automatically a crucifixion, which is implied by the references to Bacchus' death and Ixion's in this thread apparently. The definition of how a crucifixion might be defined might have been loose, but not the other way around - the identification of a person hung on a tree (especially not pole, which is impaling - cf. Joseph and the Baker which the Qur'an based on this flawed logic describes as a crucifixion) with crucifixion is not so fluid.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't draw the line at being nailed - that was just the smallest thing that didn't even match up, but I draw the line at the fact that there is no cross.

And as I said that's fine and your prerogative and all, Ixion=cross or crucifixion was certainly no claim of mine, but since you are also concerning yourself with parallels here (e.g. “not a parallel”, “doesn’t make this a parallel”), that subject isn’t limited to such narrow parameters. We’ve always been on the same page that wheel=/=cross, but I had gotten the impression that this topic was extending beyond just that.


The fact is, without a cross or crucifix, you don't have anything to extend to, except unconvincing parallels from the imagination. Someone can be nailed to plenty of things in a religious iconography, but if that thing isn't a cross, it has 0 to do with Jesus.

Quote:
Quote:
Josephus and others may have described crucifixion as being hung on a tree, but that doesn't go the other way around - being hung on something doesn't equal crucifixion. Kind of like all acute triangles are triangles, but not all triangles are acute.


But that instance I told you about was the other way around, he didn’t describe Roman crucifixion as being hung on a tree, he described “being hung on something” as a crucifixion, namely being hung on a tree (and eaten by birds). I don’t think Josephus used (nor did I imply that he used) the term crucifixion to just mean hang anything on another anything, like “oh, hung your washed clothes on a tree branch to dry? They’ve been crucified!” The point was simply that even the people who lived in that culture, same culture as the New Testament authors, didn’t so narrowly define the word the way you do here. That’s easy for us today to get sucked into doing here after the fact with so many centuries for the term to evolve that way and after so much saturation of the Christian culture upon the world we grew up in. But more to the point of my having even brought up Josephus in the first place- I don’t have any reason to think that 1st century authors, including the New Testament authors, understood the term as exclusively as yourself, nor do I think they limited themselves to exclusively Jewish or secular Roman influences. Hell, Paul even quotes verbatim from pagan poems about Zeus and drew parallels from that to the Christian God, so he clearly was not immune to the influence and direct borrowing from the pagan culture available to him.


I see, I see, that was my misreading of your post. In that case, Josephus' statement is irrelevant. One can describe many things as a crucifixion, but if they are not (as the butler in the story of Joseph wasn't crucified), then they're not. The term might have been pretty fluid, but that doesn't remove the reality that being nailed to a piece of wood such as in Ixion's case, or being entombed in a tree as in Bacchus' death, does not equate this to a crucifixion. Even if we are talking about the generic similarity of being nailed to wood (Ixion) or died "in" wood (Bacchus), these parallels can no longer be used to establish any connection - such parallels can be used pretty easily to establish just about anything, such as Justin Martyr's use of the wood carried by Isaac when Abraham was going to sacrifice him - or the bronze snake of Moses, cited by Acharya here. You simply can't look at Ixion's nailing to a wooden wheel, and Bacchus' death in a tree and say, "Hey, the Christians decided to have Jesus on a wooden cross." This is simply parallelomania. Not to mention the name of this thread is cruciforms/gods on crosses, which shows that for the parallels to be significant, there has to be an actual cross involved. Moreover, the Greeks didn't consider the tree/wood (or being nailed to it) a special motif - Ixion is the only one nailed to anything wooden, and Bacchus is the only one whose death is also associated with wood. Also, please produce what parallels you think Paul used of Zeus to describe God. Of course, generic terms that might have been used by Greeks and are reapplied by Christians don't really count as syncretism any more than the Christian use of the Greek theos to describe God is.

Quote:
Quote:
Jesus was employing a pesher with Moses' bronze serpent, which was actually put up on a pole and stretched up high. This is a typology, and one that is much closer than anything I've seen posted in this thread, except for the post-Christian Orpheus forgery. Paul draws a parallel only because crucifixion could be described as being "hung on a tree". However, nobody could actually argue that being hung on a tree is the same as being crucified - it's simply a metaphor. The same goes for Justin Martyr and the rest - they were simply using allegory, not literal examples.


This was all moot as my entire point was that they made a parallel to earlier motifs, which they did.


You can't call a couple of Greek gods' death associated with something wooden a motif, let alone one that was taken.

Quote:
And I certainly disagree with assessing the bronze serpent on a pole to be closer in resemblance to a Roman crucifixion than Ixion or other such images.


Once again, Ixion's death is not a crucifixion. You can cite as many authors who metaphorically use the phrase (such as Josephus with the butler and Joseph), but it is technically not even close to a crucifixion.

Quote:
Anyway, the point in bringing any of that up is that it demonstrates that the authors of the New Testament admitted to being influenced by pre-christian literature and imagery (in this particular example, the Old Testament) and that they did not mind creating parallels to those things in their own stories.


If you actually think the bronze serpent is a motif that was copied, that's not going to work because nobody would have considered a crucified Savior anything but a laughing stock (see Alexamenos graffito).

Quote:
I don’t get the impression that anyone here was arguing that the New Testament authors saw a picture of Ixion and thought “oh I gotta use that one!” I for one certainly don’t think so. Rather, I think what’s being proposed is that there was a common archetype that existed in pre-christian lore that involved portraying a protagonist in such a manner, much like how in today’s culture it’s common to put a superhero in tights and a cape even though they aren’t all necessarily copying Superman or any one particular superhero that came before them. There was a wide selection to choose from if an author were so inclined. Roman crucifixion wouldn’t have to have been a myth fabricated by a first century Jew. It was simply a convenient motif already available which paralleled a commonly known archetype, much like the case with post-christian parallels, for example- I think the following image is conspicuously trying to parallel Roman crucifixion, and if we contacted the artist I’m confident in guessing s/he will admit to having had Jesus in mind when developing the concept. Just because I for one happen to think this image is entirely fictional and never historically happened and that it is deliberately paralleling the crucifixion of Christ does not mean that I think power line poles are mythical in origin or that I am saying power line poles=Roman crucifixion. It’s just that power poles already exist and already bear a resemblance to the Roman/Christian cross and thus is conveniently already available for the artist to use without having to conjure up something of his/her own.
Image
http://gjsx51.deviantart.com/art/The-Crucifixion-Experiments-366651283


The problem with this is that there are absolutely no motifs of dying religious figures in Greek, Roman, or any religion associated with crucifixion or anything resembling it. If the NT authors and early Christians didn't see a picture of Ixion/Bacchus, then your hypothesis is in real trouble because there are no other examples. Not to mention that Ixion's nailing to the wheel is nothing but a shameful punishment by Zeus. You simply haven't shown any such ancient Greco-Roman motif existed for the Christians to model Jesus' crucifixion on. There simply was no such popular/common motif, let alone one that glorified the deceased upon the wooden object. My argument isn't simply - crucifixions are real, ergo Jesus' crucifixion was real. Crucifixion was an entirely possible way for a famous but viewed as troublesome figure like Jesus to die in. And there was no religion popularly throughout Judea or the Roman Empire that could have served as a template for them to create a "dying upon a wooden something" god out of.

Quote:
And hell, sometimes parallels don’t even have to be deliberate, there can even be unconscious influence, such as when the Cohen brothers admitted to being influenced by the Odyssey when penning O Brother, Where Art Thou. As I recall, they said it took them a while to even realize they were following that pattern, and then once they did they ran wild with it. Yet, in spite of them admitting from their own mouths that they both deliberately and unconsciously paralleled the Odyssey with their film, essentially none of those parallels are carbon copies from the source material. John Goodman wearing an eye patch=/=a Cyclops and young ladies doing laundry=/=the siren monster, just as we’re agreed that Ixion nailed to a wheel=/=crucifixion and a serpent on a pole=/=crucifixion.


You can only create an unconscious parallel if the parallel was very popular. For example, if I make up a story of a UFO abduction, 9/10 chances I'll describe them as bald green big-eyed things. The point is that there were no wide or popular parallels for anyone to unconsciously copy in the first century, or actually, any century before or since.

Quote:
The overarching point here is that if we’re bringing up “parallels” and the influence an earlier work can have on a later work, then it is evident that such parallels don’t have to be carbon copies of each other in order for the parallel to have been both deliberate by the author and conspicuous to the audience. I also think it’s fairly safe to say that this is also part of the overarching theme behind Acharya even starting this thread and writing her books. But I’m gathering you’re not too interested in hashing over that. You clearly want to stick to just hashing out the more specific claim somebody somewhere apparently made of [insert name]=crucifixion, and not so much the broader topic of parallels and potential sources of influence and the like. That’s cool; you and the folks who actually made that claim have fun with that.


You simply don't understand that, beside the name of the thread which obviously realizes this, without a cross, your parallel is weak beyond imagination. Not to mention you can produce only one example - Ixion. The rest are just cruciforms, which by the way, are not the majority shapes of the pre-Christian idols/statuettes: these are just cherry-picked examples stacked here to give one the impression that the spread out arms are something that was ultra-common/popular in pre-Christian times, which it was not, as it was just a possible shape one might make a figurine in. Simply put, without a popular motif of someone dying on a wooden object (you have none except Ixion, so no popularity), or a crucifixion, you don't have anything.

Quote:
So cruciform=/=crucifixion, got it, Roger that. We’re agreed. So if that’s all you wanted to address (at least where I was concerned), then as they say- /thread.


You shouldn't be informing me that cruciform=/=crucifixion, but the posters in the first two pages of this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:31 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:09 am
Posts: 7
Acharya wrote:
Here is a repost of commentary I made previously regarding the uses of the word stauros or "cross, stake" in antiquity. Again, this term is the same word used in the New Testament to describe Jesus's "cross."

As we can see, it is a complete and utter falsehood that this term was not used in pre-Christian times. But this is the sort of fallacious disinformation that apologists must toss out in order to shore up their faith at all costs.

Uses in Antiquity of the Greek Word Stauroo, 'To Crucify'

To reiterate, as but one example, the same basic word is used by Diodorus (3.65.5) in the first century BCE to describe the crucifixion of a king by the god Dionysus:

Quote:
τὸν δὲ Διόνυσον περαιώσαντα τὰς δυνάμεις μάχῃ κρατῆσαι τῶν Θρᾳκῶν, καὶ τὸν Λυκοῦργον ζωγρήσαντα τυφλῶσαί τε καὶ πᾶσαν αἰκίαν εἰσενεγκάμενον ἀνασταυρῶσαι

This last word is anastaurosai, from the verb anastauroo, which is derived from the same root as stauros.

The Greek historian Herodotus used some version of the word stauros several times more than four centuries before the common era:

Quote:
book 5, chapter 16: ... καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ κατοικημένους ἐξαιρέειν ὧδε. ἴκρια ἐπὶ σταυρῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐζευγμένα ἐν μέσῃ ἕστηκε τῇ λίμνῃ, ἔσοδον ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου στεινὴν ἔχοντα μιῇ γεφύρῃ. τοὺς δὲ σταυροὺς τοὺς ὑπεστεῶτας τοῖσι ἰκρίοισι τὸ μέν κου ἀρχαῖον ἔστησαν ... τῷ οὔνομα ἐστὶ Ὄρβηλος, κατὰ γυναῖκα ἑκάστην ὁ γαμέων τρεῖς σταυροὺς ὑπίστησι: ἄγεται δὲ ἕκαστος συχνὰς γυναῖκας. οἰκέουσι δὲ

Again, there are many more such usages in antiquity, having nothing to do with Christianity.


As if Christians ever denied that the word stauros predated Christianity...talk about a strawman, not to mention how irrelevant it is that the Greek word stauros existed before Christianity - of course it did, how else would the Gospels use it to describe what Jesus was crucified onto? Any religious use of stauros presented here - none.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Sorry, but you have contributed nothing to the discourse here and are simply trolling, failing to comprehend most of what I have posted. I am quite certain that you did not know most of what I've written here and that you do not know the subject matter as well as I do. Hence, you do not have all the pieces and are unable to put them together. Nor are you interested in obtaining those pieces but merely in jumping up and down petulantly on the puzzle.

Since you are simply a disruptive force and heckler providing nothing logical and simply regurgitating your statements of faith and a slew of insults and hostile remarks, you are no longer allowed to post here.

In the meantime, everything I've said here remains true and factual, and this pre-Christian motif of a crucified divine figure and savior is clear enough. If your belief system is wounded by such facts, that is something you can work out on another forum, but here we are interested in facts regarding the continuity of religious beliefs and how they ended up within Christianity.

It is a shame that blind belief in fantasies and recycled myths makes people hostile and willfully uncomprehending, but the evidence is obvious, and many others who are not blinded by bias and unfounded beliefs have no problem seeing how Christianity copies common and popular mythical motifs, reworking them for its own purposes.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

Quote:
Plato's World Soul and Just Man

In his Timaeus (36bc), Greek philosopher Plato (429-347 BCE) wrote about a "world soul" in the shape of a cross or X, hanging in space. As I write in Christ in Egypt, Plato's cross-like "world-soul" also represented the orbits of the sun and earth's ecliptic intersecting. This Platonic figure in turn was commonly taken to be a "foreshadowing" of the Christ character and cross. As theologian Rev. Dr. Hugo Rahner states:

Quote:
...Adapting an old Pythagorean notion, Plato had written in the Timaeus of the world soul revealed in the celestial X; to the early Christian this was a pagan imitation of the world-building crucified Logos who encompasses the cosmos and causes it to revolve around the mystery of the Cross.

One of the early Christians who saw the Cross and Son of God revealed in Plato's writing was church father Justin Martyr, who in his First Apology (60.1), in a section entitled "Plato's Doctrine of the Cross," remarked:

Quote:
And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, "He placed him crosswise in the universe," he borrowed in like manner from Moses...

The Church fathers insisted that the cross, although pre-Christian, nevertheless was biblical, appearing in the story of the Israelite prophet Moses when he raised his arms and supernaturally directed Israel's victory over the Amalekites.

Centuries before the common era, Plato also discussed a "just man" who is "crucified' (Republic 2.361-362), as related by Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger):

Quote:
...according to Plato the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed, Plato [2.362a] goes so far as to write: "They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all manner of suffering will be crucified." This passage, written four hundred years before Christ, is always bound to move a Christian deeply.

The ex-pope used a translation of Plato specifically rendering the Greek as "crucified" in describing the fate of the "just man," who was given essentially the same treatment as Lycurgus described in Diodorus. This Platonic passage much resembles the "man of sorrows" and "suffering servant" found at Isaiah 53:4-12 and, along with that OT "messianic prophecy," likely was used as a blueprint in the creation of the Christ character. Again, in Platonic philosophy, the "world soul" or "Son of God," as Justin styles it, is impressed upon a cross in the vault of heaven, representing the sun crossing over the ecliptic.

The Greek word used by Plato is ἀνασχινδυλευθήσεται, related to ἀνασκολοπίζω, which means "to fix on a pole or stake, impale." Per Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, ἀνασκολοπίζω "is used convertibly with ἀνασταυρόω," this latter term derived from the same word as stauros, again the term used in the New Testament to describe the "cross" upon which Christ was said to be crucified. Plato's usage of this word, however, predates the common era by four centuries.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Here is another image used to decorate artifacts in antiquity to convey a mythical motif regarding the goddess Artemis. As we can see from this entire thread, this type of symbolism was popular and would need to be incorporated into a new religion if said cult was designed to subordinate other religious systems and mythologies.

Image

As we have also seen throughout this thread, this popular theme often includes a central figure with two others on either side, such as in this image. Notice how her wings form a cross, and she is in cruciform.

Hence, when the creators of Christianity went to roll together the many religions, sects, cults and mythologies of the Roman Empire and beyond, they needed to have a god on a cross or in cruciform, since this symbolism was already very popular and well represented in the literary and archaeological record.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:50 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Quote:
Bacchus was never crucified, nor any kind of motif related to crucifixion besides being "clunked onto a tree, as you can see from Greek vases such as the one from the 5th century BC. Orpheos Bakkikos does depict a mythological figure that used the historical crucifixion, but it is entirely possible for Jesus to have been crucified historically, whereas Orpheus never existed in the recent past of anyone's writings. Crucifixion was seen as a shame by the Romans and Greeks and to preach a crucified god who is invented is beyond comprehension - there would be no point. Btw, Ixion is given as an example on the first page of this thread of a crucified religious figure, so you can excuse me if I assumed you also launched him as an example of pre-Christian use of the cross, as per the thread's title.
Without a cross, the parallel is nonexistent. There was … with wood.

I invoked ellipses to spare a little redundancy, since much of what’s in the ellipsis will be addressed further down below.
Anyway- no, the degree of similarity here is plenty sufficient for reasons already shown, carbon copies are not necessary. The gods who I will mention below who the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians all considered syncretic with each other all had differences no weaker or stronger than the differences they have with Jesus. Osiris and Dionysus were post-humously hung on a tree prior to resurrection, while Attis & Mithras were turned into a tree prior to rebirth. Not the same thing as each other, yet there are several statements not only considering these gods as counterparts to each other, but in some cases authors even explicitly said they were one and the same, identical, from Herodotus to Diodorus to Plutarch, etc. They clearly were not as arbitrarily narrow as yourself, yet you would seem to like for us to believe that they shared in this hair-splitting of yours. “Let’s see, Mithras turns into a tree, Osiris is hung on a tree, meh, close enough. But hey now, what’s this? A god who was also hung a tree… but with nails??? That’s just going TOO far!”
No. The people of that time and culture in such a heavily syncretistic environment clearly never drew such distinctions. Hence later we read of Hadrian commenting that a sect of Egyptian Christians had no problem with engaging in syncretism between Jesus and Osiris’s Ptolemaic version- Serapis.
Quote:
Also, please produce what parallels you think Paul used of Zeus to describe God. …

Well, it’s not me thinking it, Paul explicitly admitted he was quoting Greek poets, and he did so verbatim, thus letting us know who he was quoting. When reading those quotes in context, they were explicitly about Zeus.
It’s Acts 17:28, where Paul is alleged to have said
Paul wrote:
“For in him we live, and move, and have our being;” as certain also of your own poets have said, “For we are also his offspring.”

The former is from Epimenides in a work entitled Cretica. The latter is from the opening of Phaenomena by Aratus.
In Cretica, Epimenides depicts Minos as praising Zeus and defending him against the Cretans, which, by the way, contains another passage Paul quoted in Titus 1:12. As preserved by Isho'dad of Merv, it reads as follows:
Quote:
The Cretans carve a tomb for thee, O holy and high! Liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies; for thou art not dead for ever; thou art alive and risen; for in thee we live and are moved, and have our being.

Aratus’ passage reads:
Quote:
From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work reminding them of livelihood.

So no, this wasn’t just generic language about divinity in general. This was verbatim taking a text specifically about Zeus and applying it to the Christian god. Paul and/or the author of Acts had no problem whatsoever borrowing pagan texts and doctrines. The former of the two texts even has a brief allusion to death & resurrection imagery. If the Cretans did indeed have a dying-rising pre-christian version of Zeus of which Paul was aware… well… then there you go.
Quote:
You can't call a couple of Greek gods' death associated with something wooden a motif, let alone one that was taken.

I didn’t. You’re trailing off here. The portion to which you are here responding contained no references to dying gods, they were references to Paul and Jesus having drawn the parallels that they did.
Quote:
Once again, Ixion's death is not a crucifixion. You can cite as many authors who metaphorically use the phrase (such as Josephus with the butler and Joseph), but it is technically not even close to a crucifixion.

But technicality was not what they were conscerned with, which was exactly what I was trying to demonstrate, which I did. YOU are the one hung up on the hair-splitting over “technicality” of crucifixion. The first century authors clearly were not. You are acting as though there was some rule somewhere forbidding it. “Oh, well shucks, so-and-so’s protagonist wasn’t technically crucified, in the Roman sense, so if I’m gonna use his story for inspiration I can’t use Roman crucifixion in my own story, either that or I can’t use his story as a model. It’s just gots to be one or the other!” Sounds legit. I just can’t see a way around that ultimate of dichotomies, can you? Rhetorical, don’t answer that.

Because the answer is “yes.”
Yes you can, as we all can, because the arbitrary lines you’re trying to set up as some sort of uncrossable iron gate simply didn’t exist for the people of the cultures and context relevant to our discussion here (i.e. first century Mediterranean).
Quote:
If you actually think the bronze serpent is a motif that was copied, that's not going to work because nobody would have considered a crucified Savior anything but a laughing stock (see Alexamenos graffito).

No one was laughing in the Alexamenos graffito though. Moreover, there were lots of things that didn’t jive between cultures yet in no way prevented the syncretism between them. The Greeks “laughed” at the idea of portraying their gods as beasts in the way Egyptians did, yet they still looked up to the Egyptians, tried to claim they got their culture from Egypt, and conflated their own gods with Egyptian counter parts. They did not like the idea of depicting their gods with bird heads, ram heads, cow heads, etc., yet they still identified Zeus with Amun, Apollo with Horus, Isis with Demeter and Athena, etc. and just came up with ad hoc myths to explain away why their big brothers the Egyptians did something they considered borderline sacrilegious. As I recall, one involved the above gods shape-shifting into birds, a ram, a fish, etc. as a temporary disguise to escape from the titan Typhon.
Anyway, the point here is that this discrepancy in their cultures did not stop the influence they had on each other. So this particular argument of yours doesn’t pan out here.
Quote:
The problem with this is that there are absolutely no motifs of dying religious figures in Greek, Roman, or any religion associated with crucifixion or anything resembling it. …

Yes there is, Osiris and Inanna being the most conspicuous, who I will mention again below, and Osiris and his iconography being so prevalent, even still as late as the 1st century CE, that there was no escaping his influence in the Mediterranean world. Even Attis and Mithras, already by the 1st century CE, had deaths where they were transformed into a tree and then emerged reborn from it, hence later Firmicus Maternus mentions the traditions of crucifying effigies of Attis upon pine trees. Because the myth on which it was based already existed, even by the early 1st century(see Ovid’s Metamorphoses) just slightly before Christianity finally rolled around as the new kid on the block. Attis and Mithras both having been conflated with Osiris by the Greeks/Romans as well. As was Dionysus. And we see for good reason, they all shared commonalities, such as the hanging on a tree (Dionysus being the Greek name of the Roman Bacchus, who we see above was imitated later on by Orpheus).
Quote:
You can only create an unconscious parallel if the parallel was very popular. …

No, not true at all, and I will address this in part below (see Potter). But the point here is that this was the biggest contribution of the theses of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. No, a parallel doesn’t need to be popular or prevalent, or even conscious, because many times the parallel is a manifestation of a psychological trait common in most or all of our species and will manifest even in cultures that have had no contact, hence Quetzalcoatl and other Native American myths have some peculiar parallels to myths on the Eastern Hemisphere. Also, the parallel could be an interpretation of natural phenomenon equally accessible to the separated cultures, such as seasonal changes resulting in winter solstice rituals and myths, or allegories for astronomy resulting in parallel myths, etc., because the American tribes could see the stars just as well as the African tribes.
Quote:
You simply don't understand that, beside the name of the thread which obviously realizes this, without a cross, your parallel is weak beyond imagination.

Again, not really since the parallels Jesus and Paul themselves used did not involve a cross, one was just a tree the other was a pole- but both of them still acknowledged the parallel.
Quote:
Not to mention you can produce only one example - Ixion. ... Simply put, without a popular motif of someone dying on a wooden object (you have none except Ixion, so no popularity), or a crucifixion, you don't have anything.

For starters, not that you would disagree with this, it’s just for clarification, but as far as I recall Ixion himself didn’t even die he was just nailed to the flaming wheel and forced to spin across the cosmos on it for eternity. Seems like a solar allegory. Anyway, since you admit Ixion is (albeit the only, in your words) a parallel, and Ixion did not die on that object, then forgoing the “dying” part of your
“dying on a wooden object” there are indeed plenty of other examples, one of which was brought up in this very thread already and brought up in the New Testament by Paul- cursed is that which hangs on a tree, i.e. the posthumous hanging of stoned criminals. Also, crucifixion itself predates Jesus so there are actually thousands of pre-christian cases of dying on a tree and/or cross, some of which were even Jewish martyrs much like Jesus. Do recall the Talmud drew a parallel between Jesus Ben Stada/Pandera being hung on a tree on Passover and the biblical Jesus, whom they place around 100 years before the biblical Jesus. In the first century Josephus tells a story of seeing three men crucified and recognized them as old acquaintances if his, so he had them taken down and only one survived. It’s interesting that it was also a Joseph that took Jesus after his crucifixion, who was the only one of three to ultimately survive his crucifixion. Chariton’s Callirhoe novel likewise contains the protagonist surviving being crucified to a cross and thieves stealing a body from a grave which was mistaken as a resurrection, and that novel is dated as early as the late first century BCE (see Two Novels from Ancient Greece: Callirhoe and An Ephesian Story translated by Stephen M. Trzaskoma).
But that aside, Osiris was posthumously hung a tree, and a symbol of that tree is the Djed, and several statues show Osiris and the deceased Pharaohs identified with him as being placed on a Djed, with their back on the Djed, just like in Roman crucifixion, and the Djed was a cross, with four intersecting bars instead of one. Still, they were placed upright along this cross along their backs, hence it also came to represent the backbone of Osiris. So here a god died, was hung on a tree(in some cases a cross) and was subsequently resurrected. And yes, this resurrection was a bodily, physical resurrection, but that’s for another thread. This was pre-christian. Conspicuously similar.
Dionysus, as per MANY Greek sources, was syncretic with Osiris, centuries before Christianity, and wouldn’t you know it, countless iconography shows Dionysus hung on a tree while his Bacchae serve bread and wine on an altar. Later, Orpheus mimicks this with a Roman crucifixion and thus acknowledges that there is a parallel between that and Dionysus hanging on a tree.
Inanna was killed and then hung on a stake (some translations even say she was nailed) for three days before being given the water-of life that resurrected her. That one dates to the early 2nd millennium BCE.
Julius Caesar’s effigy was placed on a tropaeum, which is a cross (Acharya linked pictures earlier), and hung above his corpse on the day of his funeral, which took place on the third day after his murder.
Etc. and so on.
Quote:
The rest are just cruciforms, which by the way, are not the majority shapes of the pre-Christian idols/statuettes:

No one has claimed that, nor would they need to be. Again, how prevalent does a motif have to be for someone to copy it? Hardly the “majority”. The majority of fictional wizards were not named Harry Potter, only one was, the protagonist in the 1986 movie “Troll”, a young boy actually, not really a wizard, though the movie did heavily involve wizardry and Potter did borrow a wizard's weapon to defeat said troll. So this was only one example out of thousands, but that didn’t seem to stop Rowling.
How many serpent statues were hung on poles before Jesus decided to draw a parallel? By my count, only one.

Quote:
these are just cherry-picked examples stacked here to give one the impression that the spread out arms are something that was ultra-common/popular in pre-Christian times, which it was not, as it was just a possible shape one might make a figurine in

But it WAS ultra-common in pre-christian times. All you have to do is go to Google Images and search “tropaeum” and “tropaion”. That one example of such a style, and you will get hundreds of pre-christian examples among them.
Next Google “herm”, “herma”, “hermae”, or “herms”. This is a statue with a detailed head, but a cross for a body, arms outstretched. You will literally get thousands of examples, hundreds of them pre-christian, and this one was among the most popular styles of statue in the Greco-Roman world, especially among males because of the well-endowment that came with it (as you will see). Dionysus in particular became strongly associated with this form as well, so another dying-rising god often shown in the form of a cross. A few of the church fathers even comment on this and it was more of a “worship of crosses” than Christianity engages in. So they acknowledged there was a conspicuous parallel between the herm, tropaeum, and the cross.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group