Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-17-2012, 03:26 AM

Why don't these illustrations show any blood which is suped to be an essential element o the sacrifice. Or even the spear penetration? And what happened to the crown of thorns?

la70119 · 01-17-2012, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

As I am currently reforrmatting Crombie's ET of Origen's Against Celsus in order to make it easier to digest (Crombie's version is a wee tad too Victorian for my taste), might I correct you as to the number of books he wrote against Celsus? There are eight books.

FWIW, Celsus argues that IF a divine being had descended to earth, it would not take on a physical body like Jesus' is described to have possessed (eats, drinks, can be touched). Origen makes an extensive effort to refute this kind of idea. To me, Origen's insistence that Christ possessed of a real body is effectively an endorsement that he was a real person. I'm just saying, that is what Origen thinks, not necessarily what is true.

DCH

You're right about it being eight books.

And once you've reconstituted Christ from a celestial being into a real flesh-and-blood person, you open up a can of worms. You can no longer have him crucified upon a star. Here on out, a shape that the Romans commonly used (T or mast) would have to do. And later on they would change it to a tropaeum.

la70119 · 01-17-2012, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why don't these illustrations show any blood which is suped to be an essential element o the sacrifice. Or even the spear penetration? And what happened to the crown of thorns?

They chose not to emphasize the blood in these early scenes, apparently. Later on when people were suffering throughout europe and there were legends about a Holy Grail does the blood get any billing, apparently.

The spear of penetration? Four of the illustrations include the spear of Cassius Longinus. (Of course, Christians would never show a spear of penetration if it was also a 'seat'.)

Crown of Thorns? I guess when the gospels said that the soldiers put his own clothes back on him, the illustrators interpreted that to mean, they took the crown of thorns off.

la70119 · 01-17-2012, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Hey everyone. I think I have solved the mystery of Clement's reference to 'three hundred' being 'the Lord's sign.' Just to recap, while the Epistle to Barnabas says something about the Tau in 318 symbolizing the cross. Yet I noticed that Clement never says anything about the Tau being the cross. Rather Clement thinks that 'three hundred' (T = 300) representing 'the Lord's sign.' While most scholars simply brush the non-existent reference to the Cross aside thinking that 'he must mean the same thing.' Yet I noticed that Origen also refrains from referencing the cross and throws out the same numerical formulas.

Well guess what. Origen and Clement's analysis goes back to Philo not the cross. Philo says that the number 300 symbolizes the 'perfect man':

Quote:

Questions and Answers on Genesis II.5

In other words the claim that T represents the Cross is bullshit because first and foremost the T shaped Cross never appears in Christianity until the late fourth century. As we have seen the original Cross was a Chi Rho. Now we can see that the Epistle of Barnabas was edited in the fourth century.

No argument there, it's exactly what Philo said.

Now, concerning the Epistle of Barnabas, who would do such a thing? Because a lot had to be edited into that Epistle. Including adding some passages about an 'historical' crucifixion that are really gross! Maybe if we could get mountainman or aa5874 throw some ideas in....

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Indeed, the question for me has always been why would the Islamic tradition need to invent a tradition of substitution? It can't be owing to some 'plot' to subvert Christianity. The ideas are already lurking in the Quran and clearly go back to the tradition of Basilides and what is mentioned about Judas in Irenaeus. The substitution tradition is certainly pre-Islamic.

No argument with this, either.

Duvduv · 01-17-2012, 05:08 AM

I was asking about the mark in the side where the spear went in not the spear itself.
I notice tat the nails aren't prominent either.
But presumably the blood would be important because of the significance of the blood to atone for sins, which is a major element.

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why don't these illustrations show any blood which is suped to be an essential element o the sacrifice. Or even the spear penetration? And what happened to the crown of thorns?

They chose not to emphasize the blood in these early scenes, apparently. Later on when people were suffering throughout europe and there were legends about a Holy Grail does the blood get any billing, apparently.

The spear of penetration? Four of the illustrations include the spear of Cassius Longinus. (Of course, Christians would never show a spear of penetration if it was also a 'seat'.)

Crown of Thorns? I guess when the gospels said that the soldiers put his own clothes back on him, the illustrators interpreted that to mean, they took the crown of thorns off.

stephan huller · 01-17-2012, 07:56 AM

What I can't get over is that all the 'experts' continue to cite from documents like the Epistle of Barnabas as if it were a pristine witness to the first century or something. I have always had a feeling the text was heavily edited but until now I never had any proof of the reworking.

I want to figure out why Philo thinks 300 = the (perfect) human body. I kind of get the business about it being connected the ratio of the span of the arms to the length of the body but with my busy schedule lately it hasn't sunk in.

Also Philo generally stole these ideas from somewhere else. Is this Platonic? Pythagorean?

stephan huller · 01-17-2012, 07:58 AM

As I go through Google I already see the Pythagorean fraternity was divided into 300 men. This is a clear sign Philo's notion was Pythagorean.

stephan huller · 01-17-2012, 08:24 AM

This is the best explanation I can find so far:

Quote:

Undoubtedly the ark is a symbol of the city of God on its pilgrimage in history. It is a figure of the church that was saved by the wood on which there hung the “Mediator between God and men, himself man, Jesus Christ.” Even the very measurements of length, height and breadth of the ark are meant to point to the reality of the human body into which he came as it was foretold that he would come. It will be recalled that the length of a normal body from head to foot is six times the breadth form one side to the other and ten times the thickness from back to front. Measure a man who is lying on the ground, either prone or supine. He is six times as long from head to foot as he is wide from left to right or right to left, and he is ten times a long as he is high from the ground up. That is why the ark was made three hundred cubits in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty in height. As for the door on the side, that surely, symbolizes the open would made by the lance in the side of the Crucified – the door by which those who come to him enter in, in the sense that believers enter the church by means of the sacraments that issued from that wound. It was ordered that the ark be made out of squared timbers – a symbol of the four-square stability of a holy life, which, lie a cube, stands firm however it is turned. So it is with every other detail of the ark’s construction. They are all symbols of something in the church. [Augustine City of God 26]

stephan huller · 01-17-2012, 08:39 AM

So the human body is only related to the number three hundred because of the proportion of the ark's height and width (= the same is true in the human body). This can't be the reason why 300 is the Lord's sign. Instead we have to look here:

Quote:

But the number twenty-four has likewise a great number of other virtues, since it is the substance of the number three hundred, as has been already pointed out; this then is its first virtue; and it has another, since it is compounded of twelve quadrangular figures, joined to one another by a continuous unity; and besides of two long figures, and twelve double figures, being forsooth compounded of twos separately increased by two and two. Therefore the angular numbers which make up together the twelve quadrangular figures are these; one, three, five, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-three; but the quadrangular figure combines the following numbers, one, four, nine, sixteen, twenty-five, thirty-six, forty-nine, sixty-four, eighty-one, a hundred, a hundred and twenty-one, and a hundred and twenty-four. But those angular numbers which compose the other long figures are these; one, four, six, eight, ten twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty, twenty-two, twenty-four, being twelve in all; and after these come the compound numbers, two, six, twelve, twenty, thirty, forty-two, fifty-six, seventytwo, ninety, a hundred and ten, a hundred and thirty-two, and a hundred and fifty-six; being also twelve. And if you put together the twelve quadrangular figures, you will find a hundred and forty-four, and if you add the other twelve long figures, you will find a hundred and fifty-six; and from the combination of the two you will get the number three hundred, and the concord of full, and complete, and perfect nature rising up to the equal and infinite harmony; for a complete and perfect nature is the maker of equality, according to the nature of a triangle; but the equal and the infinite are the factors of inequality, according to the composition of the other long figure. But the universe consists of a combination of equality and inequality, on which account the Creator himself, even amid the destruction of all earthly things, placed a sort of fixed pattern of stability in the ark.

stephan huller · 01-17-2012, 08:46 AM

I think I found something. Clement's consistently demonstrates a dependence on the Marcosian interest in numbers which in turn is derived from Philo. Look at this:

Quote:

Know, then, that the four-and-twenty letters which you possess are symbolical emanations of the three powers that contain the entire number of the elements above. For you are to reckon thus--that the nine mute letters are [the images] of Pater and Aletheia, because they are without voice, that is, of such a nature as cannot be uttered or pronounced. But the semi-vowels represent Logos and Zoe, because they are, as it were, midway between the consonants and the vowels, partaking of the nature of both. The vowels, again, are representative of Anthropos and Ecclesia, inasmuch as a voice proceeding from Anthropos gave being to them all; for the sound of the voice imparted to them form. Thus, then, Logos and Zoe possess eight [of these letters]; Anthropos and Ecclesia seven; and Pater and Aletheia nine. But since the number allotted to each was unequal, He who existed in the Father came down, having been specially sent by Him from whom He was separated, for the rectification of what had taken place, that the unity of the Pleromas, being endowed with equality, might develop in all that one power which flows from all. Thus that division which had only seven letters, received the power of eight, and the three sets were rendered alike in point of number, all becoming Ogdoads; which three, when brought together, constitute the number four-and-twenty. The three elements, too (which he declares to exist in conjunction with three powers, and thus form the six from which have flowed the twenty-four letters), being quadrupled by the word of the ineffable Tetrad, give rise to the same number with them; and these elements he maintains to belong to Him who cannot be named. These, again, were endowed by the three powers with a resemblance to Him who is invisible. And he says that those letters which we call double are the images of the images of these elements; and if these be added to the four-and-twenty letters, by the force of analogy they form the number thirty.

And this:

Quote:

The all-wise Sige then announced the production of the four-and-twenty elements to him as follows:--Along with Monotes there coexisted Henotes, from which sprang two productions, as we have remarked above, Monas and Hen, which, added to the other two, make four, for twice two are Four. And again, two and four, when added together, exhibit the number six. And further, these six being quadrupled, give rise to the twenty-four forms. And the names of the first Tetrad, which are understood to be most holy, and not capable of being expressed in words, are known by the Son alone, while the father also knows what they are. The other names which are to be uttered with respect, and faith, and reverence, are, according to him, Arrhetos and Sige, Pater and Aletheia. Now the entire number of this Tetrad amounts to four-and-twenty letters; for the name Arrhetos contains in itself seven letters, Seige(1) five, Pater five, and Aletheia seven. If all these be added together--twice five, and twice seven--they complete the number twenty-four. In like manner, also, the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, reveal the same number of elements. Moreover, that name of the Saviour which may be pronounced, viz., Jesus 'Ihsous, consists of six letters, but His unutterable name comprises four-and-twenty letters. The name Christ the Son (uios Xreistos) comprises twelve letter, but that which is unpronounceable in Christ contains thirty letters. And for this reason he declares that fie is Alpha and Omega, that he may indicate the dove, inasmuch as that bird has this number [in its name].

This is quicker what Clement means. The number three hundred = the unutterable name of Jesus.

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

01-17-2012, 03:26 AM	#151
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Why don't these illustrations show any blood which is suped to be an essential element o the sacrifice. Or even the spear penetration? And what happened to the crown of thorns?

01-17-2012, 07:56 AM	#156
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What I can't get over is that all the 'experts' continue to cite from documents like the Epistle of Barnabas as if it were a pristine witness to the first century or something. I have always had a feeling the text was heavily edited but until now I never had any proof of the reworking. I want to figure out why Philo thinks 300 = the (perfect) human body. I kind of get the business about it being connected the ratio of the span of the arms to the length of the body but with my busy schedule lately it hasn't sunk in. Also Philo generally stole these ideas from somewhere else. Is this Platonic? Pythagorean?

01-17-2012, 07:58 AM	#157
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	As I go through Google I already see the Pythagorean fraternity was divided into 300 men. This is a clear sign Philo's notion was Pythagorean.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.