Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jjramsey · 03-15-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

No, they are not. We don't know the exact process of their thoughts, but from the evidence it appears they deduced the crucifixion from a multiplicity of facts, beliefs, aphorisms, prophesies (scriptural and otherwise) and even dreams and visions.

I'm sorry, but the evidence doesn't support this. For exampe, it was already pointed out that even the LXX word in Psalm 22 for "pierced" was not commonly associated with crucifixion. The loose connections between the OT and the crucifixion are far more consistent with someone using the OT as a post hoc proof text, not as a starting point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

A. They didn't "make it up."

Under your scenario, they had to. They could not have pulled it from the text, so they had to bring it to the text, consciously or otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

B. You don't know what their biases were, and you cannot assume that they shared the same biases with the likes of Celsus.

Paul described Christ crucified as a stumbling block to the Jews. That gives me a pretty good idea what biases to expect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

They were erstwhile messiahs, and that's more than sufficient to bring to mind the obvious parallel.

It's their being erstwhile that makes associating crucifixion with the messiah problematic. As said before, losers aren't messiahs, and crucifixion meant losing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

If there was a real Jesus, there are obvious reasons why sayings would be ascribed to him, even if they were ascribed in error. Your problem is where your legendary Jesus came from.

That wasn't your original question. Once again, we have shifting sands.

Not really. I wrote, "Another problem is what the source for your "legendary Jesus of tradition" would be to start with," and then, "But that doesn't solve your problem, which is why any of this tradition is ascribed to a man named Jesus at all." If there is a real Jesus, then the answers to the problem I mentioned are pretty straightforward. If Jesus were legendary, then the source--at least the initial source--for the tradition is trickier.

Toto · 03-15-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

On behalf of the mods, I invite you, Joseph, to start a thread on Psalm 22.

Alternatively, you might try to find a previous thread where this has all been discussed-

My teacher said Psalms talks about crucifiction before there ever was a crucifiction

and I think there has been some more in depth discussion.

Here is the thread I remembered: Interesting translation - scroll down to post 24

Doug Shaver · 03-15-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

A historian writing about Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara would not write about them as if they were real people.

A modern historian would certainly be aware of Margaret Mitchell's book and would know that she had written it as a deliberate work of fiction.

But even nowadays, with all the advantages that modern researchers have over the ancients, untrue stories still get passed around as if they were fact, and people who are usually very conscientious pass them on as fact, on the assumption that if "everybody knows it," it's probably true. You can see several examples here: http://snopes.com/history/history.asp

Doug Shaver · 03-15-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

If, however, he did not exist . . . then it is incumbent for someone using his story in a proof elsewhere to at least roughly demonstrate how and when the story arose.

You mean, we should always assume a story is based on fact unless we can identify a specific nonfactual source?

Doug Shaver · 03-15-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

So far, what I've seen has been something along the lines of "They embraced it because they saw it in the scriptures," but the case for them deriving their belief from the scriptures--as opposed to using it as post hoc justification--is weak.

All it takes for people to embrace an embarrassment is to get it into their heads that God commands them to do so.

A hundred years ago, it was pretty embarrassing for any Christian to be a member of the then-new Pentecostal movement. (In many places, it still is.) Nevertheless, a few of them did embrace Pentecostalism because the scriptures, as they interpreted the scriptures, told them it was the only way to be a true Christian. Today the movement is flourishing, albeit still as a minority.

Not that I would exactly compare being called names like "holy roller" to worshipping a scumbag of a criminal, but I think it's a lot more of a difference of degree than of kind. Especially if it's part of your message to the world to insist that the criminal was in fact falsely accused.

Malachi151 · 03-16-2006, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Malachi,

This is interesting info. Can you cite the references for the above?

Thanks!!

Jake

Here is one example:

Quote:

The charge of worshipping a cross. The heathens themselves made much of crosses in sacred things; nay, their very idols were formed on a crucial frame.

As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this point what, (let me ask,) is the difference between the Athenian Pallas, or the Pharian Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by a rough stock, without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The truth, however, after all is, that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now, every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross. Starting, then, from this rudimental form and prop, as it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually completes the limbs, and forms the body, and covers the cross within with the shape which he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or whatever the material be of which he has determined to make his god. (This, then, is the process

after the cross-shaped frame, the clay; after the clay, the god. In a well-understood routine, the cross passes into a god through the clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it the consecrated (deity) begins to derive his origin. By way of example, let us take the case of a tree which grows up into a system of branches and foliage, and is a reproduction of its own kind, whether it springs from the kernel of an olive, or the stone of a peach, or a grain of pepper which has been duly tempered under ground. Now, if you transplant it, or take a cutting off its branches for another plant, to what will you attribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not be to the grain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because, as the third stage is attributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so the third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the mean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since by a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its growth to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its primal cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing produced. Since, then, in the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates them, here will be the original kernel and grain, from which are propagated the wooden materials of your idolatrous images. Examples are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself, But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Jesus referencing cross during his "lifetime":

Quote:

31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

33But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

This is a very significant quote. Today, most Chrisitans interpret thsi as "Jeuss predicting his death", but it is not. The fact is that the cross was a religious symbol that was used by cults prior to the advent of Christianity, and thus it's use here was the commonly known use of the term cross, which had nothing to do with crucifixion.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/relics.html

Quote:

Christians did not use the familiar cross emblem for several centuries. Before its 'Egyptianisation' early Christianity used the symbols of the 'fish' and the 'chi-rho.' The Gospels in their original Greek did not refer to any crucifix but used the word "stauros" (Mark 18:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, John 19:17), meaning a stake or vertical pole.

Jesus was hung from a tree:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse

It is also significant to note that the traditional means of punishment among the Jews at the time was to stone people to death, and then hang them from a tree.

The Talmud, I believe, or perhaps it was a different Jewish text, mentions the killing of a "Jesus", by stoning and hanging him.

The gospels, written in Greek, say that he was killed by haning from a pole. (The traditional Greek means of execution)

The Bible, contructed in Rome, has him killed on a cross (The traditional Roman means of execution)

Christian apologists claim that the references to the tree in the Bible really mean cross, that its just a different word for cross. Of course, this is nonsense.

jjramsey · 03-16-2006, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

So far, what I've seen has been something along the lines of "They embraced it because they saw it in the scriptures," but the case for them deriving their belief from the scriptures--as opposed to using it as post hoc justification--is weak.

All it takes for people to embrace an embarrassment is to get it into their heads that God commands them to do so.

A hundred years ago, it was pretty embarrassing for any Christian to be a member of the then-new Pentecostal movement.

The problem is that this isn't a very good analogy. Pentecostalism has enough prima facie evidence from the NT that it wouldn't be too hard for someone to read the NT and "to get it into their heads that God commands them to do so." By contrast, there isn't enough in the OT alone for people to get a crucified Messiah into their heads, let alone the idea that God commands them to embrace such a thing.

Ben C Smith · 03-16-2006, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You mean, we should always assume a story is based on fact unless we can identify a specific nonfactual source?

No. That was not the context of my remark.

Ben.

jjramsey · 03-16-2006, 06:28 AM

Malachi151, the above quote from Tertullian does not work in your favor, because he has to stretch to get to the idea that pagans "really" worship crosses. Look at what he is actually saying:

Quote:

As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this point what, (let me ask,) is the difference between the Athenian Pallas, or the Pharian Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by a rough stock, without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure.

Wooden idols are formed from a piece of wood, which is also used to form the vertical part of a cross, so you "really" worship a cross when you worship an idol.

(Somehow this argument is reminiscent of the line "If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.)

Quote:

The truth, however, after all is, that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now, every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross. Starting, then, from this rudimental form and prop, as it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually completes the limbs, and forms the body, and covers the cross within with the shape which he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or whatever the material be of which he has determined to make his god. (This, then, is the process after the cross-shaped frame, the clay; after the clay, the god. In a well-understood routine, the cross passes into a god through the clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it the consecrated (deity) begins to derive his origin.

The clay models that you use in making idols have a wooden cross as an understructure, so you "really" worship crosses. Again, not a sterling example of logic.

Look closely at this part:

Quote:

Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross.

The whole point of a cross as an execution instrument is that is stretches out one's arms, which makes it easier to suffocate if one doesn't die of exposure, blood loss, etc., first. The cross, then, in order to do its task, has the outline shape of a man with his arms and hands outstretched. Similarly, idol makers use a cross as a skeleton because it has a roughly human shape.

Quote:

By way of example, let us take the case of a tree which grows up into a system of branches and foliage, and is a reproduction of its own kind, whether it springs from the kernel of an olive, or the stone of a peach, or a grain of pepper which has been duly tempered under ground. Now, if you transplant it, or take a cutting off its branches for another plant, to what will you attribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not be to the grain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because, as the third stage is attributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so the third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the mean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since by a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its growth to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its primal cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing produced. Since, then, in the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates them, here will be the original kernel and grain, from which are propagated the wooden materials of your idolatrous images.

Tertullian is continuing along the above arguments, basically likening the cross that is the purported basis for their idols to a seed that grows a plant, with the idol being likened to the plant.

Quote:

Examples are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself, But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.

Here he likens the standards which hold up flags and streamers to crosses.

All of Tertullian's arguments here are fallacious. He is stretching to make rhetorical points, and if you map out his actual line of reasoning, it does not follow at all that the pagans of his day actually worshipped crosses.

Steven Avery · 03-16-2006, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Christian apologists claim that the references to the tree in the Bible really mean cross, that its just a different word for cross. Of course, this is nonsense.

It looks like you are confusing two words in your analysis. In the five verses you mention the word is xulon, tree, and that is afaik universally agreed upon, and translated as, tree. The word translated 28 times as cross is stauros. (There are some who claim that stauros is improperly translated as cross. That's a worthwhile discussion in its own right. As is the NT using both tree and cross to describe the crucifixion implement.)

However afaik nobody claims that the word in the verses you linked to mentioned 'really mean cross'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.