Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 12:41 AM

I think that what this going for it is the Gospel of Philip reference. The crucified individual would have been unique. No one was ever crucified in this manner. But clearly with his arms and legs 'spread' it fits also what the Gospel of Philip says about Jesus being 'spread out.' The astral symbolism too. It reminds me of some of the Da Vinci pentagrams:

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 01:37 AM

Clement's reference to the unicorn uses the idea of 'stretching' similar to what we saw in the Gospel of Philip:

Quote:

We, then, who are infants, no longer roll on the ground, nor creep on the earth like serpents as before, crawling with the whole body about senseless lusts; but, stretching upwards in soul, loosed from the world and our sins, touching the earth on tiptoe so as to appear to be in the world, we pursue holy wisdom, although this seems folly to those whose wits are whetted for wickedness. Rightly, then, are those called children who know Him who is God alone as their Father, who are simple, and infants, and guileless, who are lovers of the horns of the unicorns. (Paed 1.5)

Why are children appropriately identified with the christogram? I don't know but there is another reference in

Quote:

To the sons, then, who come to Him, the Father gives the calf, and it is slain and eaten. But those who do not come to Him He pursues and disinherits, and is found to be a most powerful bull. Here, by reason of His size and prowess, it is said of Him, “His glory is as that of an unicorn.” [Numb. xxiii. 22] And the prophet Habakkuk sees Him bearing horns, and celebrates His defensive attitude—“horns in His hands.” [Hab. iii. 4]. Wherefore the sign shows His power and authority,—horns that pierce on both sides, or rather, on all sides, and through everything. And those who eat are so strengthened, and retain such strength from the life-giving food in them, that they themselves are stronger than their enemies, and are all but armed with the horns of a bull; as it is said, “In thee shall we butt our enemies.” (a citation of Clement in a work by the fourteenth century Metropolite of Philadelphia, Macarius Chrysocephalus Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke xv., Oration on Luke xv., Towards the Close)

The ideas are very similar to the stuff in Tertullian (which ultimately come from Justin). There is a clear intimation here that the cross is a 'sign' and that at least two of the 'horns' pierce the hands (the other two obviously piece the feet). This kind of cross obviously explains the stigmata too. It should be obvious that this last reference is connected with Tertullian's reference in Against the Jews:

Quote:

Of course no one-horned rhinoceros was there pointed to, nor any two-horned minotaur. But Christ was therein signified: “bull,” by reason of each of His two characters—to some fierce, as Judge; to others gentle, as Saviour; whose “horns” were to be the extremities of the cross. For even in a ship's yard— which is part of a cross— this is the name by which the extremities are called; while the central pole of the mast is a “unicorn.”

I should cite the whole reference from the Paedagogue to show that Clement connects the unicorn metaphor with children in a rather perplexing way:

Quote:

And that He also calls us lambs, the Spirit by the mouth of Isaiah is an unimpeachable witness: "He will feed His flock like a shepherd, He will gather the lambs with His arm,"(33) -using the figurative appellation of lambs, which are still more tender than sheep, to express simplicity. And we also in truth, honouring the fairest and most perfect objects in life with an appellation derived from the word child, have named training paidei/a, and discipline paidagwgi/a. Discipline (paidagwgi/a) we declare to be right guiding from childhood to virtue. Accordingly, our Lord revealed more distinctly to us what is signified by the appellation of children. On the question arising among the apostles, "which of them should be the greater," Jesus placed a little child in the midst, saying, "Whosoever, shall humble himself as this little child, the same shall be the greater in the kingdom of heaven."(34) He does not then use the appellation of children on account of their very limited amount of understanding from their age, as some have thought. Nor, if He says, "Except ye become as these children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God," are His words to be understood as meaning "without learning." We, then, who are infants, no longer roll on the ground, nor creep on the earth like serpents as before, crawling with the whole body about senseless lusts; but, stretching upwards in soul, loosed from the world and our sins, touching the earth on tiptoe so as to appear to be in the world, we pursue holy wisdom, although this seems folly to those whose wits are whetted for wickedness. Rightly, then, are those called children who know Him who is God alone as their Father, who are simple, and infants, and guileless, who are lovers of the horns of the unicorns. To those, therefore, that have made progress in the word, He has proclaimed this utterance, bidding them dismiss anxious care of the things of this world, and exhorting them to adhere to the Father alone, in imitation of children. Wherefore also in what follows He says: "Take no anxious thought for the morrow; sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."(36) Thus He enjoins them to lay aside the cares of this life, and depend on the Father alone. And he who fulfils this commandment is in reality a child and a son to God and to the world,-to the one as deceived, to the other as beloved. And if we have one Master in heaven, as the Scripture says, then by common consent those on the earth will be rightly called disciples.

I find this very baffling but my guess is that ONLY WHEN Jesus was 'spread' in the christogram did he become the Father? Am I on the right path? Because Jesus is the Son. Yet the erastoi of the unicorn are loving the Father, like children? It's very perplexing. They also seem to 'eat' the image (as above in Clement):

Quote:

And those who eat are so strengthened, and retain such strength from the life-giving food in them,

This is the 'spread out' metaphor in the Gospel of Philp:

Quote:

The eucharist is Jesus. For he is called in Syriac "Pharisatha," which is "the one who is spread out," for Jesus came to crucify the world

As Smith points out pharisatha can mean "to spread out" or "to break bread." The spread out Jesus is now the Father who is being consumed by the disciples as children. Eating with the eyes? But chrestos can mean "sweet" (Psalm 30.4). Honey was part of the baptism ritual in some the early church. In Tertullian Against Marcion 1.14.3 there is evidence of the use of anointing with oil and taking milk and honey in the baptismal eucharist in the Marcionite churches. The practice is still continued by Iraqi Christians to this day who give to the newly baptized milk and honey.

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 08:46 AM

Wouldn't this also mean that the gospel must have been written (or at least 'conceived') in Greek? I can't think of a Hebrew letter combination that looks like a chi-rho let alone a pre-existent literary convention like that (i.e. to check manuscripts with this symbol).

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 09:52 AM

I keep thinking also that the only argument you could make for Aramaic primacy would be if the letters were yod-shin (in inscriptions a yod is much longer than what you see on a page, basically a straight line). The horn of the bull would be represent in this trident shaped cross I guess

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 10:17 AM

Here is how “bull's horns” were depicted in antiquity

http://www.bible-history.com/sketche...bull-horns.jpg

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 10:33 AM

I think this settles it. Think of Paul's statement “I am crucified unto the world”

Although modern representations of the Chi-Rho sign represent the two lines crossing at ninety degree angles, the early examples of the Chi-Rho cross at an angle that is more vividly representative of the chi formed by the solar ecliptic path and the celestial equator. This image is most familiar in Plato's Timaeus, where it is explained that the two bands which form the "world soul" (anima mundi) cross each other like the letter chi.[9] Not only did the two legs of the chi remind early Christians of the Holy Cross, "it reminded them of the mystery of the pre-existent Christ, the Logos Theou, the Word of God, who extended himself through all things in order to establish peace and harmony in the universe," in Robert Grigg's words.[10] Hugo Rahner summarized the significance: "The two great circles of the heavens, the equator and the ecliptic, which, by intersecting each other form a sort of recumbent chi and about which the whole dome of the starry heavens swings in a wondrous rhythm, became for the Christian eye a heavenly cross."[11] Of Plato's image in Timaeus, Justin Martyr, the Christian apologist writing in the 2nd century, found a prefiguration of the Holy Cross,[12] and an early testimony may be the phrase in Didache, "sign of extension in heaven" (sēmeion ekpetaseōsen ouranō)

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 10:54 AM

Actually my idea about yod-shin is unworkable. But the letter alef comes from the pictogram of ox horns and symbolizes the (unknown) Father as the Torah begins with the letter bet. What is the equivalent of rho (the middle stake)?

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 11:05 AM

Apparently Jastrow has the answer:

Va (vav-alef) abbreviation of abba Y Ber III, 6d bot. Ib 6a top; p. fr. V abba

In other words, Va is the shortform of abba and more significantly we have the origin of the so-called “patripassian” heresy. It is just a development of the kabbalistic interest in the number six (which “spears” Jesus”). Look also at the Marcosian gospel's interest in Jesus being crucified in the sixth hour (which was changed to “third” according to a process testified in Eusebius at least indirecty)

The Aramaic is more original

la70119 · 01-11-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

This has to be the original understanding of what the cross looked like. Now the question comes - why did the Nicene Church replace this understanding? The answer (my first guess) is that it was mythical. In other words, it was an unrealistic cross. No one was crucified this way.

EXACTLY. It was impossible to crucify anyone on a cross like that. A real body nailed to it with the extremities at each end of the 'X' and the head at the top of the 'P' would ruin the effect with the arms and the torso.

It was also impossible to crucify anyone on a regular Latin Cross, a.k.a. crux immissa or tropaeum, solely with nails without the attachment of that seat or some other strong support for the body. If one is going to hang him on such a cross, one had best use ropes!

The same goes for a regular T Cross a.k.a crux commissa or crux compacta.

What happened during the crucifixion of Sebastian Horsely proves it.

la70119 · 01-11-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

From 350 CE:

For some reason this part of the Domatilla Sarcophagus titled "Resurrection" (Anastasis) reminds me of Origen's quote of Celsus when he wrote in Contra Celsum 2.68,

Quote:

But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, “if this at least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly to have at once disappeared from the cross.”

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

01-11-2012, 12:41 AM	#61
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think that what this going for it is the Gospel of Philip reference. The crucified individual would have been unique. No one was ever crucified in this manner. But clearly with his arms and legs 'spread' it fits also what the Gospel of Philip says about Jesus being 'spread out.' The astral symbolism too. It reminds me of some of the Da Vinci pentagrams:

01-11-2012, 08:46 AM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Wouldn't this also mean that the gospel must have been written (or at least 'conceived') in Greek? I can't think of a Hebrew letter combination that looks like a chi-rho let alone a pre-existent literary convention like that (i.e. to check manuscripts with this symbol).

01-11-2012, 09:52 AM	#64
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I keep thinking also that the only argument you could make for Aramaic primacy would be if the letters were yod-shin (in inscriptions a yod is much longer than what you see on a page, basically a straight line). The horn of the bull would be represent in this trident shaped cross I guess

01-11-2012, 10:17 AM	#65
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here is how “bull's horns” were depicted in antiquity http://www.bible-history.com/sketche...bull-horns.jpg

01-11-2012, 10:33 AM	#66
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think this settles it. Think of Paul's statement “I am crucified unto the world” Although modern representations of the Chi-Rho sign represent the two lines crossing at ninety degree angles, the early examples of the Chi-Rho cross at an angle that is more vividly representative of the chi formed by the solar ecliptic path and the celestial equator. This image is most familiar in Plato's Timaeus, where it is explained that the two bands which form the "world soul" (anima mundi) cross each other like the letter chi.[9] Not only did the two legs of the chi remind early Christians of the Holy Cross, "it reminded them of the mystery of the pre-existent Christ, the Logos Theou, the Word of God, who extended himself through all things in order to establish peace and harmony in the universe," in Robert Grigg's words.[10] Hugo Rahner summarized the significance: "The two great circles of the heavens, the equator and the ecliptic, which, by intersecting each other form a sort of recumbent chi and about which the whole dome of the starry heavens swings in a wondrous rhythm, became for the Christian eye a heavenly cross."[11] Of Plato's image in Timaeus, Justin Martyr, the Christian apologist writing in the 2nd century, found a prefiguration of the Holy Cross,[12] and an early testimony may be the phrase in Didache, "sign of extension in heaven" (sēmeion ekpetaseōsen ouranō)

01-11-2012, 10:54 AM	#67
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Actually my idea about yod-shin is unworkable. But the letter alef comes from the pictogram of ox horns and symbolizes the (unknown) Father as the Torah begins with the letter bet. What is the equivalent of rho (the middle stake)?

01-11-2012, 11:05 AM	#68
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Apparently Jastrow has the answer: Va (vav-alef) abbreviation of abba Y Ber III, 6d bot. Ib 6a top; p. fr. V abba In other words, Va is the shortform of abba and more significantly we have the origin of the so-called “patripassian” heresy. It is just a development of the kabbalistic interest in the number six (which “spears” Jesus”). Look also at the Marcosian gospel's interest in Jesus being crucified in the sixth hour (which was changed to “third” according to a process testified in Eusebius at least indirecty) The Aramaic is more original

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.