Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-26-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa - read the link. Samuelsson has taken these passages into account.

But this is the OPENING passage in your OP.

Quote:

The thesis, entitled Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, offers the reader samples of antiquity’s most terrifying texts and gives examples of mankind’s amazing resourcefulness in terms of mind-boggling cruelty against fellow human beings.

Samuelsson has studied the available ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic literature all the way from Homer to the first century A.D.

While the texts indicate a vast arsenal of suspension punishments, they do not say much about the kind of punishment the Christian tradition claims Jesus was forced to endure.

The thesis clearly shows that although the studied texts are full of references to suspension of objects and the equipment used to this end, no reference is made to ‘crosses’ or ‘crucifixion’. Samuelsson therefore concludes that the predominant account of the destiny of Jesus is not based on the antique texts, but rather on for example the tradition of the Christian church and artistic illustrations.

The information from the passage in the OP about 'crosses' and 'crucifixion' does not reflect the information found in sources of antiquity.

It is CLEARLY false that no text from Homer to the 1st century AD made reference to crucifixion.

stephan huller · 06-26-2010, 06:48 PM

Here's what I have been thinking about all day. If the term σταυρός is so ambiguous was it Christianity which reshaped the ambiguous term into 'the cross' - i.e. a T shaped object that we are all so familiar with? Already the σταυρός as a T shaped object is present in the Epistle of Barnabas and Clement cites that text (and its interpretation) in the late second century. I think Lucian of Samosata knows the σταυρός as T shaped object too. Is it possible that the Christian conception as a σταυρός eventually overtook and displaced all other meanings of the term? I think so but again I haven't even read Samuelsson's article. I will do that this week.

Also it is worth noting that in citing the passage in Ezekiel where God directs an angel to mark the foreheads of the elect, Tertullian takes the “mark”as the Greek letter tau. Justin also almost certainly had some T shaped object in mind in his Apology chapters 55 and 60. I also remember his discussion of Moses stretching out his arms like a cross in his interpretation of the Amalek narrative.

The point is that the evidence can't be viewed as 'disproving' the T shaped σταυρός. The idea is as early as Christian interpretation of the gospel. Let's also not forget that the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet was cross shaped. The tav (tau) was also connected with the number eight (the Ogdoad) at Passover (the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread was 21 Nisan; the Israelites crossed the waters as 22nd/8th day began) and 22 and 8 add up to the Marcosian Triacontad.

I think Samuelsson's evidence will end up only proving that Christianity re-defined the word σταυρός rather than denying that the crucifixion ever occurred.

Littlejohn · 06-26-2010, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Here's what I have been thinking about all day. If the term σταυρός is so ambiguous was it Christianity which reshaped the ambiguous term into 'the cross' - i.e. a T shaped object that we are all so familiar with? Already the σταυρός as a T shaped object is present in the Epistle of Barnabas and Clement cites that text (and its interpretation) in the late second century. I think Lucian of Samosata knows the σταυρός as T shaped object too. Is it possible that the Christian conception as a σταυρός eventually overtook and displaced all other meanings of the term? I think so but again I haven't even read Samuelsson's article. I will do that this week.
.

In my opinion, the problem is not know whether or not the Romans crucified their victims, but whether such a fate befell to Jesus or another! .. Paradoxically, the graffiti of the Palatine Hill confirms (as there are already several indications) that was not Jesus to be crucified, but another !....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

maryhelena · 06-27-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

John Malalas:

In his grief King Herod, the son of Philip, came from Judea, and a certain wealthy woman, living in the city of Paneas, called Bernice, approached him, wishing to set up a statue to Jesus, for she had been healed by him. As she did not dare to do this without imperial permission, she addressed a petition to King Herod, asking to set up a golden statue to the Saviour Christ in that city.

Hi, Stephen

I don't want to derail the crucifixion thread but I'm curious about the above quote:

John Malalas:

"In his grief King Herod, the son of Philip, .."

Herod the son of Philip???

Wikipedia says that John Malalas "strung together myths, biblical stories, and real history" - so, is there any other source that has made this connection i.e. Herod, the son of Philip? I have never come across it before.

The account says that Herod goes to Paneas - which of course was Caesarea Philippi during the reign of Philip the Tetrarch - perhaps John Malalas simply got confused with Philip being a relative of Agrippa, a family connection - thus 'son' meaning nothing more than a blood connection - from Herod the Great. Or that 'son of Philip' is simply Herod as a 'son' of the city of Philip - since that city had family connections.

Guessing I know....but I'm curious to know what other sources might had made such a connection between Herod (Agrippa II ) and Philip. So, if possible could you give me any links. Thanks.

spin · 06-27-2010, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think Lucian of Samosata knows the σταυρός as T shaped object too.

You think so? On what grounds? Where does Lucian use σταυρος? I know he uses a verb based on σκολοψ (pointed stake) when talking of christians in the Death of Peregrinus. But σταυρος?

spin

rcscwc · 06-27-2010, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is a misleading headline:
Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar

Quote:

The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.

He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".

Samuelsson, a committed Christian, gives a fuller discussion here.

Quote:

The thesis, entitled Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, offers the reader samples of antiquity’s most terrifying texts and gives examples of mankind’s amazing resourcefulness in terms of mind-boggling cruelty against fellow human beings. Samuelsson has studied the available ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic literature all the way from Homer to the first century A.D. While the texts indicate a vast arsenal of suspension punishments, they do not say much about the kind of punishment the Christian tradition claims Jesus was forced to endure.

The thesis clearly shows that although the studied texts are full of references to suspension of objects and the equipment used to this end, no reference is made to ‘crosses’ or ‘crucifixion’. Samuelsson therefore concludes that the predominant account of the destiny of Jesus is not based on the antique texts, but rather on for example the tradition of the Christian church and artistic illustrations.

Does this tend to support Acharya S's identification of the "crucifixion" with other mythic examples of gods with outstretched arms?

Whether Jesus was or was not crucified apart, Acharya S is 100% wrong about Krishna and Buddha in this regard.

DCHindley · 06-27-2010, 08:37 AM

Does anyone here realize that the distinction between a stake in the ground and a crucifix is a hot issue in Jehovah's Witnesses circles?

Greek "stauros" means basically a stake.

1) A stake can be used as a means to display the dead body of an executed person (serves as a warning to others with similar ideas)

2) A stake can be used as a torture device (tie someone to it to inflict torture for interrogation or "persuasive" purposes). Vlad the Impaler comes to mind, although he may have shoved it up their ass.

3) A stake can be used as an execution device (as the Romans loved to do). I think there must be a ton of scholarly literature out there that describe exactly how this was accomplished, or whether a crossbar was used.

Here is a little ditty that might bear on this matter, in the Epistle of Barnabas 9:7

7 For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen <<I>> stands for ten, <<H>> for eight. Here thou hast JESUS <<IHSOUS>>. And because the cross in the T was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross

.
A Tau (the "T" mentioned in this translation) is the Greek letter used to represent the number "300" and takes no other form other than a "T" shape. This, folks, is evidence of a stake with a crossbar. Please, nobody suggest that the Christians made up the cross with a crossbar and foisted it on the ignorant general public by means of a grand conspiracy!

DCH

aa5874 · 06-27-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Does anyone here realize that the distinction between a stake in the ground and a crucifix is a hot issue in Jehovah's Witnesses circles?

Greek "stauros" means basically a stake.

1) A stake can be used as a means to display the dead body of an executed person (serves as a warning to others with similar ideas)

2) A stake can be used as a torture device (tie someone to it to inflict torture for interrogation or "persuasive" purposes). Vlad the Impaler comes to mind, although he may have shoved it up their ass.

3) A stake can be used as an execution device (as the Romans loved to do). I think there must be a ton of scholarly literature out there that describe exactly how this was accomplished, or whether a crossbar was used.

Here is a little ditty that might bear on this matter, in the Epistle of Barnabas 9:7

7 For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen <<I>> stands for ten, <<H>> for eight. Here thou hast JESUS <<IHSOUS>>. And because the cross in the T was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross

.
A Tau (the "T" mentioned in this translation) is the Greek letter used to represent the number "300" and takes no other form other than a "T" shape. This, folks, is evidence of a stake with a crossbar. Please, nobody suggest that the Christians made up the cross with a crossbar and foisted it on the ignorant general public by means of a grand conspiracy!

DCH

The authors of the Canonised Jesus story did NOT give the shape of the cross. And a cross in the shape of a T is of little consequence to the method of fastening the crucified.

Littlejohn · 06-27-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcscwc:

Whether Jesus was or was not crucified apart, Acharya S is 100% wrong about Krishna and Buddha in this regard.
.

Yes, I think that yet, though I have high regard for Mrs. Acharia and her work. Although I write in his forum, but I have not yet had the pleasure to converse directly with her.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn · 06-27-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Alexamenos graffiti looks to me more like a god mounted on a pole, similar to the pagan gods who were mounted on cruciform structures and paraded around a festivals (I don't have the time now to find the picture I have in mind.) The horse-god does not appear to be tortured or in pain.

If we didn't have Christianity in mind as a god-man on cross dying before being resurrected, I don't think that anyone would see that as a death through torture.
.

Catholic apologists have no doubt that the graffiti you refers just to the Christians' Jesus (and the most informed know why also!)

However, they try to make us believe as that is one of the oldest evidences of 'blasphemy' against Christianity on the part of the pagans. It is likely, instead, that if intention of the author of graffiti was really 'blasphemous', then the aim was certainly represented by the members of some Gnostic sect, although the Gnostic world rejected the Jesus' Crucifixion as never happened.

"..The horse-god does not appear to be tortured or in pain. "

Horse-god ??.....completely astray, I think ....

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

06-27-2010, 08:37 AM	#37
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	Fits to a "T" Does anyone here realize that the distinction between a stake in the ground and a crucifix is a hot issue in Jehovah's Witnesses circles? Greek "stauros" means basically a stake. 1) A stake can be used as a means to display the dead body of an executed person (serves as a warning to others with similar ideas) 2) A stake can be used as a torture device (tie someone to it to inflict torture for interrogation or "persuasive" purposes). Vlad the Impaler comes to mind, although he may have shoved it up their ass. 3) A stake can be used as an execution device (as the Romans loved to do). I think there must be a ton of scholarly literature out there that describe exactly how this was accomplished, or whether a crossbar was used. Here is a little ditty that might bear on this matter, in the Epistle of Barnabas 9:7 7 For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen <<I>> stands for ten, <<H>> for eight. Here thou hast JESUS <<IHSOUS>>. And because the cross in the T was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross . A Tau (the "T" mentioned in this translation) is the Greek letter used to represent the number "300" and takes no other form other than a "T" shape. This, folks, is evidence of a stake with a crossbar. Please, nobody suggest that the Christians made up the cross with a crossbar and foisted it on the ignorant general public by means of a grand conspiracy! DCH

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2010, 06:48 PM	#32
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here's what I have been thinking about all day. If the term σταυρός is so ambiguous was it Christianity which reshaped the ambiguous term into 'the cross' - i.e. a T shaped object that we are all so familiar with? Already the σταυρός as a T shaped object is present in the Epistle of Barnabas and Clement cites that text (and its interpretation) in the late second century. I think Lucian of Samosata knows the σταυρός as T shaped object too. Is it possible that the Christian conception as a σταυρός eventually overtook and displaced all other meanings of the term? I think so but again I haven't even read Samuelsson's article. I will do that this week. Also it is worth noting that in citing the passage in Ezekiel where God directs an angel to mark the foreheads of the elect, Tertullian takes the “mark”as the Greek letter tau. Justin also almost certainly had some T shaped object in mind in his Apology chapters 55 and 60. I also remember his discussion of Moses stretching out his arms like a cross in his interpretation of the Amalek narrative. The point is that the evidence can't be viewed as 'disproving' the T shaped σταυρός. The idea is as early as Christian interpretation of the gospel. Let's also not forget that the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet was cross shaped. The tav (tau) was also connected with the number eight (the Ogdoad) at Passover (the seventh day of the feast of unleavened bread was 21 Nisan; the Israelites crossed the waters as 22nd/8th day began) and 22 and 8 add up to the Marcosian Triacontad. I think Samuelsson's evidence will end up only proving that Christianity re-defined the word σταυρός rather than denying that the crucifixion ever occurred.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.