spin

Yup. The cross, where is it? You know what a cross is, don't you?

Your track record is: you've got nothing at all to say. You jump on anything that has nothing to do with the stuff you're selling, but asked to deal with the topic and you have nothing to say. How Christ-like. :wave:


spin

You pay for what you get.

Juliana

Yes, and do you know what a tropaeum is? Obviously not, it's a T-shaped cross.

This is a perfect projection. You're the one who avoids dealing with the matter. I'll look exactly into your claims in the Eli, eli... matter and then post what I find there, so you should do your homework too.


Why, I thought this is a free discussion board.

spin

Another cazzata.

Look at page 385 of Carotta's notes and see a bloody cross not a T-shape.

Now there is no specification of shape about a tropaeum. It is either a trophy or merely a structure on which to hang trophies.

:rolling:

You've done it all the way through this thread.

I'm waiting for something that needs attention.

So, stop complaining.


spin

Amaleq13

According to what source? It is my understanding they were trophy monuments to victory that typically took the form of a pillar or an arch.

You can find a picture of one here as well as a description of the origin. I see no reference to a cross or a 'T'.

spin

We actually have two conflicting accounts of the funeral ceremony.

Suet. tells of the tropaeum on which was hung the bloodstained robe, while

App. tells of the wax effigy which "was turned in every direction by a mechanical device, and twenty-three wounds could be seen".

Let's put the two together, despite their conflict and get the sum of the two, a bit like the composition of the birth narrative adding the two conflicting accounts of Mt & Lk.


spin

Aquitaine

Well, that picture is of a column.

Here is a another example of a tropaeum, one that might be more accurate to those from time of the Late Republic.

Amaleq13

Is that a cross or is it armor hanging on a tree? What date is given for this item?

I've found several sources online that describe them as monuments and pillars and arches. Where can I find one that describes tropaeum in the form of a cross?

Amaleq13

Unless I am mistaken, this coin depicts the Victoria tropaeum and it looks more like a sword holding the armor trophy.

Aquitaine

About the date, I honestly have no idea. But the fact that such a shape did exist for tropaeums does have some significance.


Yes, they must have come in several different shapes.
That coin you link to seems to show the tropaeum from the side, perhaps. (Perhaps not, of course...)

The tone of this 'discussion' seems to have devolved into biased presentations of examples in support of our personal sides only, and exclusions and denigrations of any evidence that supports the other side...
I guess it is part and parcel of any discussions regarding religion, or that take place online, or any discussions on subjects which Juliana feels very strongly about. haha! (Sorry Juliana! )

Vork, I take it for face value that you desire to know the truth, and that you have spent much time studying and exploring with this aim in mind. I also feel the same way, but with far less studying of the professional texts. I want to rectify that. In the meantime, I have spent a good deal of time thinking and studying, and always with an open mind, and always wanting to know the truth.

I am very much aware of how CRAZY this Carotta idea seems. It was my initial reaction, too. I can see your reaction, and I will accept that you are being very honest in your objections. But I am convinced that there is a plausibility to what Carotta is saying. Unfortunately, he didn't write it with an intellectual defense built-in, to address the inevitable objections that people like you would have. (Perhaps this is why it is so hard for people like me and Juliana to easily describe the theory in the heat of argument. ) What you say about Atwill is the way to go, I guess. BUT, the fact that Carotta did not do as Atwill did, does not mean that he is not on to something...

You seem quite convinced that Christianity has a solid source in Judaism. Of course, any idiot would have to agree: it sure seems plain as day! Christianity certainly oozes with it.
But on the other side of the coin, haven't you also encountered many observations that there are important elements in Christianity that are not Judaistic, but rather Hellenistic? (I am finding a little time to read some of the articles listed on that webpage you mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time lately...)

For example, the eucharist seems more related to Hellenistic mystery religions than to Jewish customs.
And the crucifixion of their awaited Messiah seems pretty counterintuitive to my understanding of Judaism, as well as does the very idea that JHVH would allow himself to become a human being.

But a god willingly sacrificing himself for the good of humanity IS a very Hellenistic idea. The god's death and his resurrection, as well as the 'eating' of the god, is integral to mystery religion, based upon an agricultural society that celebrates the turning of the seasons...

spin

To be able to judge the merit of Carotta's idea, one needs a good grounding in a number of fields. Without such a basis I know how you can be convinced, and with such a basis I doubt that you could accept it.

I personally see a strong component of the Jewish religion in christianity, but I also think that the religion was developed in the diaspora, so by necessity it took on aspects of Mediterranian thought, including the mysteries and neo-Platonism.

How the figure is killed is not as important as that he suffered, as the suffering servant of God is supposed to. That is very much in line with one strand of Jewish thought.

This is a later incongruous development in christianity, the shift from servant dying to god dying, with the seeds of the trinitarian theology.

Resurrection had a brief popularity in Jewish literature at the time of the Hellenistic Crisis (circa 175 - 160 BCE) with Daniel, 2 Maccabees and Enoch's Animal Apocalypse, so the idea of resurrection was nothing particularly novel at the time, but I'd say that that familiarity would have made it easier to absorb related non-Jewish ideas in the diaspora, the nexus between the suffering servant, the dying and resurrection, the mystery, salvation through the mystery...


spin