Freethought & Rationalism Archive

05-08-2003, 01:57 AM

No joedad, the case for borrowing is slightly weakened by showing that the amulet is a magical and not a cult object. Also, we now have the full range of Christian imagary (even if not used as religious objects) several centuries earlier than we previously thought which again slightly strengthens the historicists' case. I mean very slightly as the evidence is too late to tell us anything much about events of the first century.

Sorry, no cigar.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Yellum Notnef · 05-08-2003, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
No joedad, the case for borrowing is slightly weakened by showing that the amulet is a magical and not a cult object. Also, we now have the full range of Christian imagary (even if not used as religious objects) several centuries earlier than we previously thought which again slightly strengthens the historicists' case. I mean very slightly as the evidence is too late to tell us anything much about events of the first century.

Sorry, no cigar.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Lets see it.

I'm also curious about the dubious disclaimer "even if not used as religious objects".
How could an image of Jesus on the cross (which is the image in question here) be anything other than a religious object?

I don't think thats a cigar you're smokoing,Bede.

05-08-2003, 08:10 AM

Fenton,

It is a magical amulet. There is a distinction between magic and religion recognised by both pagans and Christians.

B

Yellum Notnef · 05-08-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Fenton,

It is a magical amulet. There is a distinction between magic and religion recognised by both pagans and Christians.

B

You can call the amulet whatever you want. My question was not about that.

What I asked you was where is the new evidence for pre 7th century depictions of Jesus' crucifixion.
Are you also suggesting that this new found Christian imagery was used for magical purposes instead of religious?

Toto · 05-08-2003, 10:44 AM

So no one wants to defend the historicity of the Passion Narrative? (A 3rd c. amulet that seems to confuse Jesus and Bacchus hardly advances the case.)

Or have all the usual theists been so devastated by Peter Kirby's refutation of Metacrock's 11 points (the Jesus Variants thread) that they are in total retreat?

05-08-2003, 10:45 AM

Sorry Fenton, I misunderstood you. The amulet I was discussing is held in the British Museum, London. There is a picture of it in Magic in the Middle Ages by Richard Kieckhefer. And yes, the image is on a magical amulet. This does not mean the image had a non-Christian source but simply that Christians were using their religious images for magic as some of them have always done.

B

MortalWombat · 05-08-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Besides the "mockery" scene, Philo describes a betrayal, crucifixion(s) that happen at the third hour, as in Mark; the crucifixion(s) happen on a holiday when amnesty would be appropriate, but a mob forces the Roman governor to carry out the sentences. There are other familiar elements: a via dolorosa, jeering and abuse by onlookers, an arrest by a detachment of fully armed Roman soldiers, companions who show cowardice, betrayal by a Judas figure. The elements seem to be reworked in a literary fashion, as they make sense as part of Philo's narrative, but create difficulties and awkwardness in their gospel transfiguration.

It is Leidner's thesis that the character of "Jesus" in the gospels was a composite based on the Jewish people of Alexandria, who suffered crucifixion, but were later rescued when Flaccus was arrested and deposed.

It seems that Philo of Alexandria might be the source of more than just the passion story. He also refers to the Logos as "the Son" and "the first-begotten of God." Sound familiar?

Sources: Tracing the Christian Lineage in Alexandria and Greco-Jewish Philosophy

Yellum Notnef · 05-08-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Sorry Fenton, I misunderstood you. The amulet I was discussing is held in the British Museum, London. There is a picture of it in Magic in the Middle Ages by Richard Kieckhefer. And yes, the image is on a magical amulet. This does not mean the image had a non-Christian source but simply that Christians were using their religious images for magic as some of them have always done.

B

Bede,
You have confused me. Lets slow this down for a minute.

The amulet first mentioned in this thread is the one of Dionysus pictured on the front of The Jesus Mysteries. This amulet was in the Berlin Musuem and was somehow lost during WWII.

Are you now saying that there is a SECOND amulet found in the British museum depicting a crucified Jesus?

Please confine your answer to the simple question above. We'll continue once this confusion has been cleared up.

Thank you.

05-08-2003, 12:50 PM

Yes. There is another amulet of similar date in the British Museum which shows Jesus crucified with a woman praying at the foot of the cross. This one is identifed as Jesus. There may be many more such 'Christian' amulets and I am trying to find the BMs catalogue of engraved jewels to have a look.

B

Yellum Notnef · 05-08-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Yes. There is another amulet of similar date in the British Museum which shows Jesus crucified with a woman praying at the foot of the cross. This one is identifed as Jesus. There may be many more such 'Christian' amulets and I am trying to find the BMs catalogue of engraved jewels to have a look.

B

How is it identified as Jesus?

And is this supposed to be an example of what you were talking about when you said:

Quote:

Also, we now have the full range of Christian imagary (even if not used as religious objects) several centuries earlier than we previously thought

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

05-08-2003, 01:57 AM	#11
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	No joedad, the case for borrowing is slightly weakened by showing that the amulet is a magical and not a cult object. Also, we now have the full range of Christian imagary (even if not used as religious objects) several centuries earlier than we previously thought which again slightly strengthens the historicists' case. I mean very slightly as the evidence is too late to tell us anything much about events of the first century. Sorry, no cigar. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

05-08-2003, 08:10 AM	#13
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Fenton, It is a magical amulet. There is a distinction between magic and religion recognised by both pagans and Christians. B

05-08-2003, 10:44 AM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So no one wants to defend the historicity of the Passion Narrative? (A 3rd c. amulet that seems to confuse Jesus and Bacchus hardly advances the case.) Or have all the usual theists been so devastated by Peter Kirby's refutation of Metacrock's 11 points (the Jesus Variants thread) that they are in total retreat?

05-08-2003, 10:45 AM	#16
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Sorry Fenton, I misunderstood you. The amulet I was discussing is held in the British Museum, London. There is a picture of it in Magic in the Middle Ages by Richard Kieckhefer. And yes, the image is on a magical amulet. This does not mean the image had a non-Christian source but simply that Christians were using their religious images for magic as some of them have always done. B

05-08-2003, 12:50 PM	#19
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Yes. There is another amulet of similar date in the British Museum which shows Jesus crucified with a woman praying at the foot of the cross. This one is identifed as Jesus. There may be many more such 'Christian' amulets and I am trying to find the BMs catalogue of engraved jewels to have a look. B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.