Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mikem · 01-01-2006, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I can point to many different types of crosses used in antiquity.
Vorkosigan

Many years ago I read a book called "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, an Anglican clerygman, who argued that the conventional sign of the cross derived from the first letter of the Babylonian god Tammuz, and was simply the first letter T with a lower horizontal line. Why he thought this I cannot now remember, but someone with an interest in this subject might care to research it? Or maybe you have come across it. It has always been my belief that the sign of the Cross, in one form or another was universal, and may have been at some point a fertility symbol.

Mountain Man · 01-01-2006, 09:25 AM

Interesting.... 6 pages, 141 posts, and not one contained any evidence for the existence of the biblical jesus.

Toto · 01-01-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikem

Many years ago I read a book called "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, an Anglican clerygman, who argued that the conventional sign of the cross derived from the first letter of the Babylonian god Tammuz, and was simply the first letter T with a lower horizontal line. Why he thought this I cannot now remember, but someone with an interest in this subject might care to research it? Or maybe you have come across it. It has always been my belief that the sign of the Cross, in one form or another was universal, and may have been at some point a fertility symbol.

The Two Babylons on Amazon is also in Jack Chick's catalogue

It is also online at a number of sites, including this: The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop "First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858".

The Sign of the Cross

I bet Dr. Gibson would classify this as anti-Catholic hate literature, and, like most 19th century works, it needs to be read with a grain of salt.

It is also online here: Philologos site where the editor remarks:

Quote:

Rev. Hislop's work has lately been questioned, most notably by Ralph Woodrow's book "The Babylon Connection" (excerpts at <http://users.clarkston.com./rcorson/2babylons.htm> [dead link]). I have read that particular book and find it unconvincing and confusing in its own right and still feel that "The Two Babylons'" inclusion on this website is warranted as a scholarly work delving into the area of error within the church (wherever it's found and from wherever it came— ultimately IS Babylon). You will not get too far in your research of church history without coming across references to this book and that is the reason we have included it here— a reference work not as something to be used to beat someone else over the head with (like some use the Bible itself).

River · 01-01-2006, 03:34 PM

I'm just curious....how seriously is modern scholarship and peer review

evaluating the Lost Travels of Jesus or St.Issa?

-River

Toto · 01-01-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by River

I'm just curious....how seriously is modern scholarship and peer review

evaluating the Lost Travels of Jesus or St.Issa?

-River

19th century scholarship took the time to investigate it:

From here

Quote:

J. Archibald Douglas, Professor at Government College in Agra, India, took a three-month vacation from the college and retraced Notovitch's steps at the Himis monastery. He published an account of his journey in The Nineteenth Century (June 1895), the bulk of which reproduced an interview with the chief lama of the monastery. The lama said he had been chief lama for 15 years, which means he would have been the chief lama during Notovitch's alleged visit. The lama asserted that during these 15 years, no European with a broken leg had ever sought refuge at the monastery.

When asked if he was aware of any book in any Buddhist monastery in Tibet pertaining to the life of Issa, he said: "I have never heard of [a manuscript] which mentions the name of Issa, and it is my firm and honest belief that none such exists. I have inquired of our principal Lamas in other monasteries of Tibet, and they are not acquainted with any books or manuscripts which mention the name of Issa."[16] When portions of Notovitch's book were read to the lama, he responded, "Lies, lies, lies, nothing but lies!"[17]

The interview was written down and witnessed by the lama, Douglas, and the interpreter, and on June 3, 1895, was stamped with the official seal of the lama. The credibility of The Life of Saint Issa was unquestionably damaged by Douglas's investigation.

What more is there to take seriously?

Toto · 01-01-2006, 04:11 PM

mata leao's claims about Christian charity have been split off here

River · 01-01-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

19th century scholarship took the time to investigate it:

From here

What more is there to take seriously?

interesting, so the Lama denies St. Issa of Tibet....

However, are the documents in Kashmir, India pertaining to St. Issa legit?

Are the Lost Travels of Jesus Christ as well as Aquarian Gospel

taken seriously by any western academics....?

River · 01-01-2006, 04:39 PM

-Toto

the link seems interesting...

let me get back to you...

-River

mata leao · 01-01-2006, 05:00 PM

Roger Pearse argued that the cross did not seem to be prominent among pagans, however the cross became extremely prominent in the very early Christian church in Jerusalem and has consistently been prominent among Christians ever since. Crosses and other lst centruy christian symbols are good circumstantial evidence of a linkage between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the gospels and the mission of the early church which was to feed the hungry, heal the sick and preach the gospel throughout the world. The earliest Christian missionaries would often covertly draw the symbol of the cross or of the fish in the dirt as a way of covertly communicating with the recipient, with a counter-sign as a way of hiding from the original jewish inquisition and then the later Roman inquisition. In many parts of the world to this very day it is common to see the CRoss prominently deisplayed on the walls of Christian churches, hospitals, feeding centers, etc. As besta s I can tell there is an historically unbroken linkage of use of the cross and the fih sign from the time of Jesus to 2,006.

Toto · 01-01-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

Roger Pearse argued that the cross did not seem to be prominent among pagans, however the cross became extremely prominent in the very early Christian church in Jerusalem and has consistently been prominent among Christians ever since.

Please cite a source for the use of the cross in the very early church in Jerusalem.

This site disagrees with your contentions. Religioustolerance says that the cross was not much used before the time of Constantine. Please show where it is wrong.

Quote:

Crosses and other lst centruy christian symbols are good circumstantial evidence of a linkage between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the gospels and the mission of the early church which was to feed the hungry, heal the sick and preach the gospel throughout the world.

Source?

Quote:

The earliest Christian missionaries would often covertly draw the symbol of the cross or of the fish in the dirt as a way of covertly communicating with the recipient, with a counter-sign as a way of hiding from the original jewish inquisition and then the later Roman inquisition.

The use of the fish is well attested. What is your source for a cross, and why would it have to represent crucifixion?

Quote:

In many parts of the world to this very day it is common to see the CRoss prominently deisplayed on the walls of Christian churches, hospitals, feeding centers, etc. As besta s I can tell there is an historically unbroken linkage of use of the cross and the fih sign from the time of Jesus to 2,006.

Crosses were also used in the crusades as a symbol of warfare. The fish symbol was very common in early Christianity, but no so much until more modern times, when it has made a comeback.

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

01-01-2006, 09:25 AM	#142
Mountain Man Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bootjack, CA Posts: 2,065	Interesting.... 6 pages, 141 posts, and not one contained any evidence for the existence of the biblical jesus.

01-01-2006, 03:34 PM	#144
River Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NY Posts: 3,680	I'm just curious....how seriously is modern scholarship and peer review evaluating the Lost Travels of Jesus or St.Issa? -River

01-01-2006, 04:11 PM	#146
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	mata leao's claims about Christian charity have been split off here

01-01-2006, 04:39 PM	#148
River Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NY Posts: 3,680	-Toto the link seems interesting... let me get back to you... -River

01-01-2006, 05:00 PM	#149
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	Roger Pearse argued that the cross did not seem to be prominent among pagans, however the cross became extremely prominent in the very early Christian church in Jerusalem and has consistently been prominent among Christians ever since. Crosses and other lst centruy christian symbols are good circumstantial evidence of a linkage between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the gospels and the mission of the early church which was to feed the hungry, heal the sick and preach the gospel throughout the world. The earliest Christian missionaries would often covertly draw the symbol of the cross or of the fish in the dirt as a way of covertly communicating with the recipient, with a counter-sign as a way of hiding from the original jewish inquisition and then the later Roman inquisition. In many parts of the world to this very day it is common to see the CRoss prominently deisplayed on the walls of Christian churches, hospitals, feeding centers, etc. As besta s I can tell there is an historically unbroken linkage of use of the cross and the fih sign from the time of Jesus to 2,006.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.