Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-08-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Chi-Rho (labarum, Constantine's cross, Christogram, Monogram of Christ)

The Chi-Rho emblem can be viewed as the first Christian Cross.

As a pre-Christian symbol, the Chi-ro signified good fortune. The Chi ro became an important Christian symbol when adopted by the Roman Emperor Constantine, representing the first two letters in the name of Christ- the Chi, or 'ch,' and Rho, or 'r.' According to Church Father Eusebius, on the eve of the Battle of the Milvan Bridge, the Emperor saw the emblem in a dream, with the inscription, "By this sign, you shall conquer." According to the story, the battle was won. In return for the victory, Constantine erected Christian churches. Unfortunately, this story is very unlikely, as Constantine's conversion occured on his deathbed, if at all. In any case, the symbol was the standard of the Emperor's army, prominently displayed on the Emperor's labarum, or battle standard.

Before it became the monogram of Christ, the chi rho was the monogram of Chronos, the god of time, and an emblem of several solar deities.
The Chi-ro is also the origin of the tradition of abbreviating "Christ" in "christian" or "Christmas" to "X."

In Hebrew, Chi-Rho equates to Tav-Resh. The chi rho was used in hermetic alchemical texts to denote time.

http://altreligion.about.com/library...ldefschiro.htm

Clivedurdle · 07-08-2008, 02:59 PM

Is there any relationship between christos and chronos?

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-08-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is there any relationship between christos and chronos?

No. Why would you ever think so?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 07-08-2008, 03:09 PM

Because

Quote:

The Riddle of the Four Faces: Solving an Ancient Mystery

Darek Barefoot

Why are there four Gospels in the New Testament? Christians have been confronted with that question since the second century, as well as with the variances if not outright contradictions between the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And, as historians are quick to observe, other Gospel versions besides the familiar ones were available to early believers, such as the mystically-tinged "Gospels" attributed to Peter and Thomas. The selection of four seems both arbitrary and problematic.
Or is it? The second-century bishop Irenaeus of Lyons speculated that the four canonical Gospels correspond with visionary depictions of angels, or "cherubim," found in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel and in the New Testament book of Revelation. The cherubs of Ezekiel each have four faces -- those of a man, a lion, an ox (or bull) and an eagle -- corresponding to the four cardinal points of the compass (Ezek. 1:10). In Revelation the man, lion, ox and eagle appear as separate beings but are still grouped together (Rev. 4:7). Irenaeus attempted to relate each of the creatures to one of the Gospels. He saw Matthew as corresponding to the man's face because it opens with a human genealogy of Jesus and because, in the view of Irenaeus, Jesus' humanity is emphasized throughout the book. Because Luke opens with a narrative involving priestly duties and temple services, Irenaeus associated it with the only sacrificial animal in the foursome, the ox. He linked the early mention of Holy Spirit in Mark with the winged creature, the eagle, while proposing that John's prologue concerning Jesus' divinely "royal" parentage marks that book as belonging to the regal animal, the lion (Against Heresies 3.11.8).
Irenaeus' conjecture about a relationship between the four faces and the four Gospels continued to fascinate Christian commentators in subsequent centuries, even as their tendency to reshuffle the face-to-Gospel assignments cast doubt on it. Augustine, like Irenaeus, assigned the ox to Luke, but gave the lion to Matthew, the man to Mark and the Eagle to John (The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10). Jerome, by contrast, heard the lion's roar in the opening command of Mark to "prepare the way of the Lord" and felt himself soaring to heaven on eagles' wings as he read the prologue of John, but stuck with the man for Matthew and the ox for Luke. Jerome's classification has proven to be the most durable, but commentators have periodically revisited the question and proposed yet other assignments (see Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel 1.1; in the book Cosmic Codes , 1999, evangelical writer Chuck Missler suggests an assignment of the lion to Matthew, the ox to Mark, the man to Luke and the eagle to John).
Since the various opinions concerning the cherub faces and their relationship to the four Gospels all rest on subjective arguments, deciding between them would seem to be futile, as would continuing to plow such well-turned earth by taking up the question yet again. But that is exactly what I propose to do here. I will argue, in fact, that assignments can be made objectively and systematically. The actual relationship between the faces of Ezekiel and the Gospels not only differs from the interpretations of church fathers, it also poses a formidable challenge to secular theories which assume a purely human origin of the Gospels.
Of Sphinxes and Cherubs
It may be helpful to note briefly the history of composite creatures in ancient religion. Anyone who has seen representations of gods from pagan Egypt or Mesopotamia will appreciate the tendency of ancient cultures to portray their deities by combining features of different animals or features of animals and humans. Men with the heads of birds or jackals, winged bulls and lions with or without human heads and similar figures are commonplace. The combination of man, lion, bull and eagle is not as odd as it sounds, since each was seen as dominating some sphere of the natural world: the lion over wild animals, the bull or ox over domestic animals, the eagle over birds and man over creation in general. The oldest occurrence of the foursome may be on a 3,200-year-old bronze cult stand from Cyprus which portrays a cherub with the head of a man, the wings of an eagle, the forelegs of a lion and the hindquarters of a bull (see Elie Borowski, "Cherubim: God's Throne?" in Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), July/August, 1995).
The creatures of Ezekiel therefore are easier to understand in an ancient context than they are in a modern one. What better way to emphasize the transcendence of human limitations by the angelic beings who surround the throne of God than by attributing to them ferocity, power and swiftness using common animal symbols of the time? We might be tempted to stop at that explanation and seek no deeper meaning relating to the four Gospels of the New Testament if not for a characteristic of the Gospels themselves which leads us back inevitably to Ezekiel's vision.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...barefoot1.html

and

Quote:

In Greek mythology, Chronos (Ancient Greek: Χρόνος) in pre-Socratic philosophical works is said to be the personification of time. His name actually means "time," and is alternatively spelled Khronos (transliteration of the Greek) or Chronus (Latin version). Not to be confused with Cronus, a Titan.
Chronos was imagined as an incorporeal god, serpentine in form, with three heads--that of a man, a bull, and a lion.

He and his consort, serpentine Ananke (Inevitability), circled the primal world-egg in their coils and split it apart to form the ordered universe of earth, sea and sky.
He was depicted in Greco-Roman mosaics as a man turning the Zodiac Wheel. Often the figure is named Aeon (Eternal Time), a common alternate name for the god.
Chronos is usually portrayed through an old, wise man with a long, gray beard, such as "Father Time."
Some of the current English words whose etymological root is khronos/chronos include chronology, chronic, and chronicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronos

Clivedurdle · 07-08-2008, 03:17 PM

Χρίστος
Χρόνος

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-08-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Χρίστος
Χρόνος

The Titan's name begins with a a Kappa NOT a Chi. One is a name, the other is an adjective.

Jeffrey

MortalWombat · 07-09-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Χρίστος
Χρόνος

The Titan's name begins with a a Kappa NOT a Chi. One is a name, the other is an adjective.

Jeffrey

It's true that the Titan's name begins with Kappa. But Chronos (Χρόνος) is not the titan (Κρόνος), but a different entity in Greek mythology, representing time.

From Clivedurdle's link above:

Quote:

In Greek mythology, Chronos (Ancient Greek: Χρόνος) in pre-Socratic philosophical works is said to be the personification of time. His name actually means "time," and is alternatively spelled Khronos (transliteration of the Greek) or Chronus (Latin version). Not to be confused with Cronus, a Titan.

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-09-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortalWombat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The Titan's name begins with a a Kappa NOT a Chi. One is a name, the other is an adjective.

Jeffrey

It's true that the Titan's name begins with Kappa. But Chronos (Χρόνος) is not the titan (Κρόνος), but a different entity in Greek mythology, representing time.

From Clivedurdle's link above:

Quote:

In Greek mythology, Chronos (Ancient Greek: Χρόνος) in pre-Socratic philosophical works is said to be the personification of time. His name actually means "time," and is alternatively spelled Khronos (transliteration of the Greek) or Chronus (Latin version). Not to be confused with Cronus, a Titan.

Which only goes to show that Clive doesn't read anything apart from what he finds online, but that he constantly misreads/misunderstands the very online sources he cites.

In any case, other than the fact that both words begin with a Chi, there is no link, let alone a conceptual or etymological one, between the noun Χρόνος and the adjective Χρίστος.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 07-09-2008, 09:34 AM

Someone else getting in a dander! I have only pointed out something that needs exploring further - that Christ and Chronos have a man lion and bull in common and the similarity of words, add in poorly educated scribes, mishearing of words by people with different religions and languages and there is more than enough room for Chinese Whispers.

Did everyone speak and write immaculate Greek?

On Judaism and Hellenism the problem is that huge amounts of syncretism occurred all over the place.

Clivedurdle · 07-10-2008, 08:44 AM

On Dan Brown, an evolutionary analogy might help.

The vast majority of life now and throughout its entire 3.5 billion year plus history is microbial. Us allegedly "higher" forms with our structural features are basically very rare flotsam, but because we see things from our scale we misinterpret this.

I see a similar pattern here - most religion has always been and actually still is amazingly promiscuous - we are confused about this because of some huge structural features - Islam and Xianity - and because they have both strong evangelical tendencies.

We are really in a small god world, as illustrated by animism, hinduism and the myriad sects and superstitions the West develops.

A detailed look at Chronos Christ and Chrestus is definitely in order - the complex cell is now agreed to be the symbiosis of two microbial beasties.

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

07-08-2008, 02:59 PM	#2
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is there any relationship between christos and chronos?

07-08-2008, 03:17 PM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Χρίστος Χρόνος

07-09-2008, 09:34 AM	#9
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Someone else getting in a dander! I have only pointed out something that needs exploring further - that Christ and Chronos have a man lion and bull in common and the similarity of words, add in poorly educated scribes, mishearing of words by people with different religions and languages and there is more than enough room for Chinese Whispers. Did everyone speak and write immaculate Greek? On Judaism and Hellenism the problem is that huge amounts of syncretism occurred all over the place.

07-10-2008, 08:44 AM	#10
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	On Dan Brown, an evolutionary analogy might help. The vast majority of life now and throughout its entire 3.5 billion year plus history is microbial. Us allegedly "higher" forms with our structural features are basically very rare flotsam, but because we see things from our scale we misinterpret this. I see a similar pattern here - most religion has always been and actually still is amazingly promiscuous - we are confused about this because of some huge structural features - Islam and Xianity - and because they have both strong evangelical tendencies. We are really in a small god world, as illustrated by animism, hinduism and the myriad sects and superstitions the West develops. A detailed look at Chronos Christ and Chrestus is definitely in order - the complex cell is now agreed to be the symbiosis of two microbial beasties.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.