Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-31-2009, 11:39 PM

Erwin Goodenough is the author of Jewish Symbols in Greco-Roman Period translated by Jacob Neusner (or via: amazon.co.uk).

I'll look into this more.

Toto · 08-01-2009, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

http://www.kingsolomon.com/literary/...n/mikecook.htm

...

This link is literally NSFW. It is a humorous "404 page not found" that led to an "access denied - pornography" message. (It was Beavis and Butthead making rude gestures.) But in any case, that essay has disappeared.

Jews used x's and tau's as symbols. Did they use crosses, with reference to crucifixion? That is the question.

show_no_mercy · 08-01-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I knew that. Paul knew Hebrew

No he didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

why would he write about Hebrews in Latin - the point.

"Paul" itself is a Latin name meaning "small".

Toto · 08-01-2009, 01:40 PM

Putting the nail in IamJoseph's claims:

The original link can be read on archive.org. It is a somewhat hysterical reaction to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ slasher movie, and might have been pulled for various reasons, including a general lack of credibility or misattribution to Professor Cook.

Goodenough's work is discussed in Early Rabbinic Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Jacob Neusner, available on Google books, Chapter 11 at p. 209, and also in Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion (or via: amazon.co.uk) By David W. Chapman, also on Google books, chapter 4, "Crucifixion in Symbology and Magic" (I am pretty sure that Dan Brown invented the word "symbology" but that's how things go these days.)

Jews had a number of magical symbols, including 'x' and '+' but it is a stretch to identify any of them with the cross in crucifixion.

IamJoseph's credibility continues to fall.

IamJoseph · 08-01-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Putting the nail in IamJoseph's claims:

The original link can be read on archive.org. It is a somewhat hysterical reaction to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ slasher movie, and might have been pulled for various reasons, including a general lack of credibility or misattribution to Professor Cook.

Goodenough's work is discussed in Early Rabbinic Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Jacob Neusner, available on Boogle books, Chapter 11 at p. 209, and also in Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion (or via: amazon.co.uk) By David W. Chapman, also on Google books, chapter 4, "Crucifixion in Symbology and Magic" (I am pretty sure that Dan Brown invented the word "symbology" but that's how things go these days.)

Jews had a number of magical symbols, including 'x' and '+' but it is a stretch to identify any of them with the cross in crucifixion.

IamJoseph's credibility continues to fall.

I will post you other links to impress you. The Jews, more than anyone else, can have any meaningful say about the cross symbol, before and after Christianity emerged. There is no confusion of x and y: Rome introduced crucifixion and mass murdered Jews - and this was continued in a worse form by the church. It is also a fact the cross was a symbol which murdered more innocent folk than any other symbol in Geo-History. Who would respect a symbol which did such evil to them - would you! There is no room for innocent here.

IamJoseph · 08-01-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I knew that. Paul knew Hebrew

No he didn't.

Seems none of the writers of the Gospels knew Hebrew - yet they are the experts on the subject!

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

why would he write about Hebrews in Latin - the point.

======================

"Paul" itself is a Latin name meaning "small".

Paul is Shaul - a Hebrew name. Names such as Paul and Jesus are fiction - no one was called by these names - they were not latin and never used that language. In fact, it was totally disdained and disrespectful to use such names of Jews. European christians made the gravest error to honor and follow depraved Rome.

IamJoseph · 08-01-2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

http://www.kingsolomon.com/literary/...n/mikecook.htm

...

This link is literally NSFW. It is a humorous "404 page not found" that led to an "access denied - pornography" message. (It was Beavis and Butthead making rude gestures.) But in any case, that essay has disappeared.

Jews used x's and tau's as symbols. Did they use crosses, with reference to crucifixion? That is the question.

Ypu asked for a reference and I provided one - you don't like it so its gets tossed. Jews never used symbols for worship, so this was a code - and there a need for a code of Rome, which was akin to the nazis, but which Europe glorifies with fictional justifications and omissions. Tao was not even born yet and Jews had no connection to this - they had with Rome's crucifixtions - well before the Gospels emerged. What porn - its a bona fide sight!

IamJoseph · 08-01-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Putting the nail in IamJoseph's claims:

The original link can be read on archive.org. It is a somewhat hysterical reaction to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ slasher movie, and might have been pulled for various reasons, including a general lack of credibility or misattribution to Professor Cook.

Goodenough's work is discussed in Early Rabbinic Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Jacob Neusner, available on Google books, Chapter 11 at p. 209, and also in Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion (or via: amazon.co.uk) By David W. Chapman, also on Google books, chapter 4, "Crucifixion in Symbology and Magic" (I am pretty sure that Dan Brown invented the word "symbology" but that's how things go these days.)

Jews had a number of magical symbols, including 'x' and '+' but it is a stretch to identify any of them with the cross in crucifixion.

IamJoseph's credibility continues to fall.

You should have focused on Jewish tombstones bearing crosses before Christianity emerged, and that the cross became a Christian symbol later in the 2nd century only. It is not a stretch considering millions of Jews were crucified - well before christianity emerged! The + sign meant saved, while the x meant selected for crucifixion. The reference to a porn site is also unwarranted - if a site is shut down it is allocated to other unrelated parties - this is a commnplace occurence.

Quote:

1.
The stake used by the Romans at crucifixion. This was so familiar to the Jews in New Testament times that they spoke frequently of "men carrying their cross before them while going to be executed" (Gen. R. lvi.; Pesiḳ. R. xxxi., ed. Buber, 143b), as did Jesus (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24, and parallels; see Crucifixion).

2.
A specific Christian symbol: termed by Jews ("warp and woof"); also ("idol"). Concerning this the law is: "As far as it is made an object of worship by Christians, it is to be treated as an idol and prohibited for use; if, however, it is worn as an ornament without any religious object, its use is permitted to the Jews".

The cross as a Christian symbol or "seal" came into use at least as early as the second century (see "Apost. Const." iii. 17; Epistle of Barnabas, xi.-xii.; Justin, "Apologia," i. 55-60; "Dial. cum Tryph." 85-97); and the marking of a cross upon the forehead and the chest was regarded as a talisman against the powers of demons (Tertullian, "De Corona," iii.; Cyprian, "Testimonies," xi. 21-22; Lactantius, "Divinæ Institutiones," iv. 27, and elsewhere). Accordingly the Christian Fathers had to defend themselves, as early as the second century, against the charge of being worshipers of the cross, as may be learned from Tertullian, "Apologia," xii., xvii., and Minucius Felix, "Octavius," xxix. Christians used to swear by the power of the cross (see Apocalypse of Mary, viii., in James, "Texts and Studies," iii. 118). Nevertheless Jewish teachers in the Middle Ages declared that Christians must be believed when swearing by the cross, as, in reality, they swear by the true God (Isaac of Corbeil, in "Sefer Miẓwot Ḳaṭan," 119, quoted by Güdemann, "Gesch. d. Erz. u. Cultur in Italien," 1880, i. 90). The fact, however, that the cross was worshiped as an idol during the Middle Ages caused the Jews to avoid (compare Ex. xxiii. 13) the very word "Cross," as well as all derivatives of it; for instance, "kreuzer" they called "ẓelem" or, abbreviated, "ẓal"; and the town "Kreuznach" they called "Ẓelem-Maḳom."
Several forms of the cross appear to have been used: the simple form, like a plus sign, the so-called St. Andrew's cross, and the Latin cross, which is mentioned in Ezek. ix. 4 (Hebr.) as the "mark of life set upon the men to be saved" (compare Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Vulgate, or St. Jerome, to Ezek. l.c.; and Tertullian, "Adversus Marcum," iii. 22; compare Job xxxi. 35). On the other hand, the oblique or St. Andrew's cross, resembling the letter "x," was used in Justin's time (see "Apologia," i. 60, where he compares the Christian cross with the cosmogonic starting-point in Plato's "Timæus," 36), and was known also to the Jews (see Anointing and Cabala), this form as the initial letter of Χριστός being preferably used. In Jewish circles the original connections of both the Latin and the St. Andrew's cross were quite naturally ignored.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...cross%20symbol

show_no_mercy · 08-02-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

"Paul" itself is a Latin name meaning "small".

Paul is Shaul - a Hebrew name.

"Paul" the letter writer is only call "Saul" in Acts of the Apostles, where the author has Paul change his name for no reason. "Saul" doesn't mean "small" in Hebrew, it means "asked" or "borrowed".

Acts of the Apostles was written in the 2nd century. Prior to that, Paul's only other name or alter-ego by some Christians was "Simon the Magician", the father of all heresies.

Susan2 · 08-02-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Toto
You realize that at least some liberal Christians think that the anti-women clauses in Paul's letters are later insertions.

1) Totally irrelevant. 2)The clause(s) exists.
3)As to the sit down and shut up verses, there are many of them. Repetative meme's.

4)What other Christians, liberal or otherwise is an appeal to what, consensus?

Quote:

Paul himself seems to have worked with women who spoke up in church and prophesied on their own, and the passages that tell women to shut up in church and listen to their husbands do not fit into the context of the epistles where they are found.

Irrelevant. Inconsistency. Bait and Switch. The passages exist.

Quote:

And no one thinks that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Irrelevant.
An appeal to authority.
Bait and switch.
Inconsistency.

All the above You decide.

Having said that, you are correct that no “one’ thinks that Paul wrote the Hebrews, millions do, billions did. Enough said.

Quote:

The same authors have written
Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us also on Google Books. I think you might find something there that you would agree with.

A quote of review from the Amazon link in regards to another book by the authors, as sited above in your post.

Quote:

From Library Journal
Brock (director, Fellowship Program, Radcliffe Inst., Harvard Univ.) and Parker (president, Starr King Sch. for the Ministry, Graduate Theological Union) have written an intensely personal and provocative book. They aim to show that the theological assertion that God required the death of Jesus to save the world sanctions violence.

From Publishers Weekly
"We were convinced Christianity could not promise healing for victims of intimate violence as long as its central image was a divine parent who required the death of his child," writes Brock. The two authors take turns communicating their views, sharing deep and painful traumas (such as Parker's childhood sexual abuse, estranged marriage and abortion) as they weigh the concept of "redemptive suffering." Too many Christian women, they argue, have remained in abusive situations because they have been taught that their suffering is necessary for spiritual growth. The authors are serious theologians, confidently challenging such explicators of the faith as Anselm and Abelard, Wesley and Whitehead. Readers may not agree with Brock and Parker that the fundamental Christian doctrine of Jesus' atonement is inherently dangerous and destructive for Christians, especially women. But they cannot help but be swayed by the book's searing passion and profoundly literary writing style (a remarkable achievement in a coauthored work). Brock and Parker have thrown down a gauntlet that cannot be ignored.

1.

The above review of the book doesn’t jive with the quote below by the author Rita Brock. Of course I haven’t read either book, but the review of the book Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search For What Saves Us, completely contradicts what Ms. Brock says in the bolded portion of the quote below.

Quote:

I am a coauthor of this book. We wrote a readable, exciting, interesting book. However, we did extensive research, and our 100 pages of endnotes document our insights and conclusions. Before you accuse us of bogus things, at least make sure you've understood what we've said.

The idea of salvation as paradise in this world is deeply grounded in Jewish texts and ideas, esp Gen. 1-2, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Psalms. Chapters 1-2 of our book show the deep roots of the Jesus movement in Middle Eastern religions, even in the pre-biblical Sumerians.

The idea that Jesus' crucifixion saved the world is the betrayal of Christianity. Paul is clear in Rom 6, Jesus died once, he will never die again, death has no power over him and Christians worship the RISEN Christ. Worship of crucifixion was war propaganda for imperial conquest and holy war.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...hout_the_cross

Is Ms. Brock now sanctioning violence? If crucifixion is violence, is it only violence when it occurs to her, but it is alright because it happened to one man 2,000 years ago?

Bait and switch, inconsistent. So much for appeals to authority, especially Harvard graduates, and seminary presidents?

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

07-31-2009, 11:39 PM	#21
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Erwin Goodenough is the author of Jewish Symbols in Greco-Roman Period translated by Jacob Neusner (or via: amazon.co.uk). I'll look into this more.

08-01-2009, 01:40 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Putting the nail in IamJoseph's claims: The original link can be read on archive.org. It is a somewhat hysterical reaction to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ slasher movie, and might have been pulled for various reasons, including a general lack of credibility or misattribution to Professor Cook. Goodenough's work is discussed in Early Rabbinic Judaism (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Jacob Neusner, available on Google books, Chapter 11 at p. 209, and also in Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion (or via: amazon.co.uk) By David W. Chapman, also on Google books, chapter 4, "Crucifixion in Symbology and Magic" (I am pretty sure that Dan Brown invented the word "symbology" but that's how things go these days.) Jews had a number of magical symbols, including 'x' and '+' but it is a stretch to identify any of them with the cross in crucifixion. IamJoseph's credibility continues to fall.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.