Solo

true statement....

you mean abhorrent to any moral person, don't you ? . Why would anything be abhorrent to reason ?

I think a reasonable person would observe that Paul's mysticism and the gospel stories, coming as they do after the alleged event, would not have changed anything on the actual proceedings or whether or not the crucifixion had any theological meaning.

I am sure you have noted that Paul in 1 Cr 15:12-19 confronts the unbelief in the flock in post-mortem resurrection of Christ. But if the folks at Corinth did not apprehend Jesus the way Paul did (as Christ), and Jesus really was a mythical being (as opposed to a historical person mythicized), surely many would have said: no, Paul he was not crucified at all. He was God's elect; no mortal could touch him ! Paul would have had to deal with that in a place like Corinth. Instead, he said : if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. So then according to what the mythicists are saying, Jesus was a mythical being who was optionally dead !

I am not sure what 'popular' means here. It was an excruciatingly painful, and humiliating form of, death. So, if for the believers this sort of Redeemer's end on earth was to be meaningful, if they were to be touched by it, it had to relate to something very special in their own lives, to make them feel like they shared in "the body of Christ".

Rom 6:3-6 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Note here the bi-polar experience of 1) 'baptismal' death likened to crucifixion, and 2) glorious life likened to the risen Lord. I don't see this as much relating to a seasonal dying and rising of a god as to a fervent belief of Paul and those who listened to him that the shared experience they have had is meaningful and comes from God who through the trials and tribulations tries their faith and adopts them as sons.

I don't think so, maryhelena. The cross figures as a central theme in Paul's theology, and a powerful argument in his gospel. It was absolutely essential to the establishment of Christianity as a religion in its own right. Through the image of suffering Redeemer, Christianity has always been able (and willing) to reach the farthest of all religions and by that I mean go and help humans who no one else would touch. I don't think any other element of the Christian mythology can quite compete with that.

There is a great opening scene in the 1980 movie The Big Red One: Through a morning mist the camera moves to a country-lane crucifix hovering over a WWI. battlefield carnage. The narrator goes: "This is a story of fictional life which ended in an authentic death."

Happy Easter,

Jiri

Toto

I admit that I do not find the church fathers easy to read, but it appears to me that Tertullian is saying that the Roman idols were hung as if being crucified (p. 30 on Tertullian on Google Books. He is drawing some sort of parallel between Jesus (or other crucified Christians) and the wooden or metal Roman idols.

I'm not sure which way this cuts. For commentators like Freke and Gandy, or Acharya S, the mere image of a god hung on a cross beam is enough to suggest the source for the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. At least it suggests that the form of the crucifix was a familiar one, not something so strange that it can only be explained by a real crucifixion followed by an actual resurrection.

Dave31

In the first place, Justin obviously contradicts himself, and we can't answer for why he would do that, except to split hairs and toss out a few straw men and red herrings.

That quote actually continues on to say:

In other words, when the Pagans went to "imitate" the coming Christian messiah, they didn't depict their gods as "crucified" because they didn't understand the notion, since it was "put symbolically."

Yes, it WAS "put symbolically," so the pre-Christian Pagans, who most assuredly did have gods on crosses, recognized that this motif was not literal but symbolic. They didn't depict their gods as having been thrown to the ground and hammered onto a wooden cross by a bunch of Romans - as that is not the definition of "crucify." They depicted their gods in cruciform, arms outstretched, in the "cross of space," as in Plato. Plato specifically discusses the CRUCIFIED man or god or divine being in the form of a cross, centuries before the Christian era. To quote Christ in Egypt:

And Justin evidently understood this fact, but attempts to create a difference between this SYMBOL and that of Christ on the cross.

GD, you are in a losing battle here, because any which way you cut it, the god, goddess or divine being on a cross or in cruciform certainly DID exist long before the Christian era, and Justin obviously knew that fact.

So, which is it, GD? If Tertullian provided PARALLELS, then Acharya certainly has not misinterpreted him. Is that the ONLY standard the Romans carried? Looks like a modern reproduction to me as well. LOL! Tertullian argues that they were carrying standards with their gods in cross shape. I would take his word over yours as to what was current in his day.

As concerns the pre-Christian god on a cross and in cruciform, see the response above. Also look to Egypt, where there were plenty of gods and goddesses in cruciform. In "Suns of God," Acharya provides other images long pre-dating the Christian era of gods and goddesses in cruciform. It's a common symbol, so, again, GD, you are fighting a losing battle here. It's quite obvious that the creators of the Christ MYTH knew about the god/goddess in cruciform and sought to provide their own version, weaving Roman crucifixion into the story in order to do so.

Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST
(and Religious History)
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/sk...zeitgeist.html

Christ in Egypt video book description
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Zms...e=channel_page

aa5874

It was the fictional resurrection that was "Paul's" foundation for salvation.

This is "Paul" declaring the significance of the non-event, the resurrection.

Romans 10:9 - 1Cor 15:17 - Fiction for salvation was "Paul's" central theme in his "theology".

It should be note that the writer Paul mentioned the death and resurrection of Jesus over 100 times and mentioned the crucifixion only about or no more that 14 times.

Amaleq13

Why do you assume Philo's view was shared by all Jews?

aa5874

Why do you assume Philo had a view?

show_no_mercy

Maybe Paul wasn't writing to Jews. Maybe he was writing to ger toshavim. Gentile Greeks probably would have no qualms about worshiping a man as a god.

GakuseiDon

Yes, he certainly is drawing parallels. But He says two things:
1. The shape of the cross can be seen in the banners that Romans themselves rever. The materials draped on them form "the robes of the cross", i.e. a human-shaped figure (as can be seen in the picture I gave above.)
2. When sculptors create sculptures of the gods, they start by putting the clay on a cross or stake-like structure.

Note that Tertullian is not saying that any of the Roman idols were crucified, or even that the Roman gods were depicted as crucified. (I agree it can take a while to get one's head around what they are saying, but it does become clear once you've read through it enough times).

This is from Tertullian's Apology, where he explains the parallels between Christians being tortured and the process of how the sculptures of the gods are formed. I've highlighted the parts where he describes how the statues of the gods are made:

You put Christians on crosses and stakes: what image is not formed from the clay in the first instance, set on cross and stake? The body of your god is first consecrated on the gibbet. You tear the sides of Christians with your claws; but in the case of your own gods, axes, and planes, and rasps are put to work more vigorously on every member of the body. We lay our heads upon the block; before the lead, and the glue, and the nails are put in requisition, your deities are headless. We are cast to the wild beasts, while you attach them to Bacchus, and Cybele, and Caelestis. We are burned in the flames; so, too, are they in their original lump.

Before we start analyzing what the parallel means, I think it still needs to be shown that there were images of gods hung on a cross. Acharya has badly misread her sources if she wants to suggest that the Romans "possessed gods themselves in cruciform and that these images were objects of worship".

aa5874

Ro 1:16 - Based on the NT, the Jews were first asked to worship a blasphemer sacrificed to God in order to obtain salvation, later Paul after being blinded to reality, asked people, including Jews to accept that the very Jesus, the executed blasphemer, was sacrificed to God for salvation of the habitable earth.

But, during the same time Peter and Paul were preaching a most abominable message, worship a blasphemer as a God, Philo and the Jews of Alexandria considered Gaius most despicable and impious to be worshipped as a God.

Now, Eusebius in Church History even claimed Philo and Peter may have met in Rome.

Church History 2.17.1

What a calamity. What fiction!

Amaleq13

Is that supposed to be funny or are you just being disingenuous?

You attributed a view to him.

Why do you assume you can generalize this view to all Jews?