John Kesler

It is appropriate that part of your screen name is "spam," because you will be treated as other spam is--filtered and ignored.

Solo

You will need to provide some background for this, spam.

I think the twelve apostles were Mark's creative adaptation of the Twelve (Mark himself does not use the term "apostles" in the ordination of the twelve disciples by Jesus (3:14) and "apostles" in Mk 6:30 looks like an afterthought in referencing the group). I do not believe Paul was Mark's source for the number of Jesus troopers, as 1 Cr 15:5 was not written by Paul. However, the controversial passage is important in gauging the dating and provenance of the tradition. In the passage Cephas stands outside the Twelve, so the passage would be earlier than, or parallel to, Mark (but unknown to him), or, at any rate, earlier than the general knowledge of Mark penetrated the community. As other writings of Paul not only not support the existence of the Twelve in his time, but seem to argue violently against it (e.g. no apostolic "authority" known at Corinth, 1 Cr 1:11-13, the "3 pillars" in Gal 2:9), it appears the Twelve are post-Paul. In the James the Just's congregation where Jesus incubated from a judgment-day martyr to a fallen Messiah who would return, the Twelve would have been superfluous, since James was the revered leader (GThomas 12). They likely originated as the church council, and the apocalyptic judges of Israel (perhaps based on Daniel 7:22), after James was killed by the Temple powers-that-be in 62 CE.

At any rate, unlike the later traditions of the virgin birth and the Eucharist, I do not see any pagan influence on the formation of the twelve apostles tradition. Enlighten me, will you ?

Jiri

spamandham

Combined with several other facts. If you don't consider this the presentation of a case, then what is? Would I have to show you pottery shards from the time inscribed with 'the christian cross symbol came from the pagans, Jesus'? The fact that you don't find it convincing is not the same as me not presenting anything.

Do you know that's the case, or are you merely speculating?

You are starting with the supposition that the passion story is based on a historical event. I am not starting with that assumption. Since I haven't started with that assumption, I am looking for answers to questions such as 'why did the author put this into the story'. The answer mioght be "because it actually happened", but I'm not making that as a starting assumption.

At any rate, I can't provide you what you've requested. I've stated the case as it stands, and you don't find it compelling. Oh well.

spamandham

You just got done arguing there was no applicable mention of the 12 prior the gospels, which you agree have pagan influence, and yet see no connection between the 12 and that pagan influence?

Once we agree that there is significant pagan influence in the Gospels, we have established an attempt to syncretize paganism with Judaism. It no longer makes sense to say "well this piece came from here and that piece came from there", unless there is no similar prior tradition in one or the other. If there is '12' symbolism found in both pre-christian paganism, as well as Judaism, then when we find that symbolism in Christianity, what is the basis for claiming it came only from the Jewish side?

spamandham

I see that you were unable to locate the posts of mine containing the claims you said I made, and have chosen my suggested alternative course of action. Very good.

Amaleq13

I've reviewed the entire thread and this is simply false. You have offered no "other facts", let alone "several", in support of a direct connection between pagan use and early Christian use of a cross as a symbol. You've only offered a Wikipedia article that utterly fails to establish any such connection.

An unsubstantiated claim and a Wikipedia article that does nothing to support that claim does not constitute "the presentation of a case", no.

As I've already repeatedly and explicitly explained, you need specific evidence describing how pagan cross symbolism became Christian cross symbolism. To date, you've presented nothing even approximating that sort of evidence.

That is correct. It is the absence of any post on this thread in which you present something specifically supportive of your claim that is exactly the same as you not presenting anything.

I know for a fact that you have presented no such connection in this thread despite making the assertion.

You are simply incorrect here as I am doing no such thing. Whether we consider the story to be history, mythology, or pure fiction, you have offered nothing to establish a direct connection between pagan use of the cross and early Christian use of it.

Yes, I had gathered that to be the case. I don't expect it will prevent you from making the same unsubstantiated assertion in the future, however, since you don't seem to understand the need for specifically supporting evidence.

No, I do not consider the bare fact of the generally similar geometry of symbols absent any specific evidence of a direct connection to be a good case for a direct connection. I would hope it was obvious that no one should. :banghead:

Please apply this to our discussion. Where is the similar prior tradition of Christian use of the cross as a symbol of sacrifice?

Solo

Please, read what I have written again. I believe the Twelve arose as judgment reference and refer to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Obviously, you have not thought this through. Today's soccer was domiciled on the British Isles, where it was often banned by authoritites because of its riotous nature. In 16-17 century, it was commonly associated with vileness of human nature ("Nor tript neither, you base football player", says Earl of Kent in King Lear). But the game was eventually exported, first to the Continent and than to Latin America where it became religion. The greatest shrine to soccer, the Maracana was built in Rio de Janeiro. Obviously the game was heavily syncretized, adapted and in the end mastered well above the skills of the Brits. The kleats originating in England, has no bearing on the square goal posts originating in Germany and the red card being first intruduced in Italy.

It is something called 'context'. We know that the idea of a judgment coming on Israel (Mt 23:37: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.) was one of the propellers of the new sect and later religion. For people with that sort of agenda, the number 12 looks much closer to the number of Israel's tribes than the number of zodiac signs.

Jiri

spamandham

There are three distinct facts regarding the cross in this one post:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...9&postcount=38

Here, I'll repeat the relevent section to save you the trouble of exhaustively scanning the thread again (adding the brackets to note the points):

I've already stated this is all I have. I have nothing else to offer you. There is no other information I can provide you. Is this starting to sink in yet? How many more times do you want me to say it? I can't meet the standards you've defined, and now you're just making shit up. Are there or are there not 3 distinct facts regarding the cross presented in that post? If so, then how the fuck do you get off claiming you've reviewed the entire thread and can find no other facts? We're done.

spamandham

Ok. I guess I'm the only one who sees astrotheological symbolism in Revelation. Since I have no interest in discussing that at this point, I retract the statement that the number 12 had anything to do with pagan influence.

Amaleq13

I read it and it is quite apparent that none of those facts provides support for your assertion.

#1 fails to establish how pagan use directly connects to Christian use. In other words, it fails to meet the criterion you have subsequently (and quite correctly) suggested is needed (ie similar prior tradition).

#2 is a vague generality that fails to provide any direct connection with regard to the specific issue of the cross as a symbol.

#3 is, as I have already explained, quite clearly wrong. The cross clearly was a very potent symbol to Jews and anyone else suffering under Roman oppression.

Yes but you don't seem to recognize that you have nothing that actually supports your claim according to your own standards yet you continue to post as though you do.

I understood you had nothing several posts back. It would appear that you are the only one having difficulty grasping that fact.

You can't meet your own standards and everything I've said about your posts in this thread has clearly been accurate.

You were clearly implying that the other facts you had posted were supportive of your claim. Within that context, the answer is quite obviously "no".

You need to read more carefully. I wrote:
And, as I accurately observed, you have not posted any "facts" which support a direct connection between pagan use and early Christian use of a cross as a symbol and those are the only facts that are relevant to your assertion. I made the claim because it is true.

Yes, I think it has been quite clearly established that your claim has no support.