Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-13-2008, 04:37 AM

When exactly did the Cross become main stream in xianity? Do the theological and archaeological evidences match?

Deus Ex · 06-13-2008, 05:26 AM

http://www.history.com/media.do?acti...ross_broadband

A link to a short History Channel documentary on the cross.

Clivedurdle · 06-15-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

The most widely recognised symbol in the world

That History Channel programme assumes the xian view of history.

If the cross is so widespread - and once it became an important execution method of Rome - pre and post Empire - (there is actually no reason to assume crosses and xianity are related until much later) - the reason for xianity's success may in fact be the adoption of this very powerful symbol of the cross as its key symbol, and the writings of the stories of a death of a god on a cross afterwards or in some form of iterative co-evolutionary process.

No reason for any historical starting point at all, but very powerful psychological and symbolic reasons - bringing together gods and humans, life and death, the classic human shape of the person upright with arms outstretched.

Time and place correct - mixing of oriental cults with Greek and Roman thinking, widespread use of the cross as a weapon of death and social control.

We have a process of merging and changing of symbols - the fish symbol with the god Jesus, losing its vagina and becoming a cross.

And people use the cross as core to an hj?

Game set and match to a mythic process.

Clivedurdle · 06-15-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

It is commonly stated that on the evening of October 27, with the armies preparing for battle, Constantine had a vision which lead him to fight under the protection of the Christian God. The details of that vision, however, differ between the sources reporting it. It is believed that the sign of the cross appeared and Constantine heard "In this sign, you shall conquer" in Greek.
Lactantius states that, in the night before the battle, Constantine was commanded in a dream to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers" (de mort. pers. 44,5). He obeyed and marked the shields with a sign "denoting Christ". Lactantius describes that sign as a "staurogram", or a Latin cross with its upper end rounded in a P-like fashion. There is no certain evidence that Constantine ever used that sign, opposed to the better known chi-rho sign described by Eusebius.
From Eusebius, two accounts of the battle survive. The first, shorter one in the Ecclesiastical History leaves no doubt that God helped Constantine but doesn't mention any vision. In his later Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives a detailed account of a vision and stresses that he had heard the story from the emperor himself. According to this version, Constantine with his army was marching somewhere (Eusebius doesn't specify the actual location of the event, but it clearly isn't in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τούτωι Νίκα". The Latin translation is in hoc signo vinces — "In this (sign), conquer". At first he was unsure of the meaning of the apparition, but in the following night he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the labarum, the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the chi-rho sign.
Those two accounts can hardly be reconciled with each other, though they have been merged in popular notion into Constantine seeing the Chi-Rho sign at the evening before battle. Both authors agree that the sign wasn't readily understandable to denote Christ, which corresponds to the fact that there is no certain evidence of the use of chi-rho as a Christian sign before Constantine. Its first appearance is on a Constantinian silver coin from c. 315, which proves that Constantine did use the sign at that time, though not very prominently. He made extensive use of the Chi-Rho and the Labarum only later in the conflict with Licinius.
As the god Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, featured prominently on Constantinian coins and monuments in the years before and after the battle, the vision has been interpreted in a solar context (e.g. as a halo phenomenon), which would have been reshaped to fit with the Christian beliefs of the later Constantine.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, of scenes from the Bible and allegorical groups. The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art. The first Christians had no prejudice against images, pictures, or statues. That idea has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries.[6]

(And wiki is dependent on the Catholic Encyclopaedia!)

youngalexander · 06-15-2008, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Christians from the very beginning adorned their catacombs with paintings of Christ, of the saints, ...

(And wiki is dependent on the Catholic Encyclopaedia!)

Geez Clive, I can only proffer the comment. No, they did not.

Hint: if you present some evidence in support of this ...

Clivedurdle · 06-15-2008, 07:15 AM

I must not quote wiki!

I was suspicious about the wiki article because it was referring to the Catholic Encylopaedia, and there are a huge amount of complexities around this.

So what is the reality of the catacombs and when was the cross introduced into xianity?

Amaleq13 · 06-15-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And people use the cross as core to an hj?

No, they use the crucifixion as "core to an hj". It is the notion of consciously choosing the most socially unacceptable and humiliating death for their revered central figure that suggests to some the earliest Christians were faced with an inescapable fact of history.

One must obtain a good understanding of the part shame played in society at the time as well as the significance of that particular means of execution at the time. I think the relative shamelessness of our society makes these difficult concepts to truly grasp without conscious effort and study.

Dave31 · 06-15-2008, 10:57 AM

What comes to my mind when I think of Christianity and the cross is this:

Matthew 16:24 "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Mark 8:34 RSV "And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

"Scholars realize that this anachronistic phrase is historical nonsense. It couldn't have had any meaning to the disciples before the cruci-fiction."

Quote:

"The cross & the crucifix are very ancient symbols found around the world LONG PRIOR to the advent of the Christian savior. In the gospel story Jesus tells his disciples to 'take up the cross' & follow him. Obviously, the cross already existed and was a well-known symbol, such that Jesus did not even have to explain this strange statement about an object that, we are led to believe, only gained significance AFTER Jesus died on it."

Quote:

"The sign of the cross, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates in both the East and West to the introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization" ..."according to Milani, a symbol of the sun (Bertrand, La religion des Gaulois, p. 159), and seems to denote its daily rotation."

- Catholic Encyclopedia: The Cross
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm

Quote:

"In The Apology (Chapter XVI), Tertullian writes:

"Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us...We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy....Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our god..."

It seems early church fathers like Terullian had strong distaste for the cross.

Clivedurdle · 06-15-2008, 12:56 PM

Were there any mystery religions that had as a rite the initiate taking a cross and following the initiator?

CuriousToo · 06-15-2008, 01:26 PM

Crucifiction on the cross was a form of Roman capital punishment. Jesus was not the only person ever crucified. When the Disciple Paul was to be crucified for preaching about Jesus, he asked to be placed upside down since he was not worthy to die like his Christ. The Romans obliged and crucified him upside down. It is significant to know what happened to Christ during his hours on the cross since the Old Testament described what would happen before Christ was born. An example being, "He will not suffer his legs to be broken". The soldiers would break the legs of those on the cross to hasten their death. The two who died beside Christ had their legs broken. When they came to Christ they saw that he was already dead. To make sure, they pierced his side.
Jesus faced a cruel death as a innocent man. He endured the beating and lashes to his body. He fell in the street with weakness. Christ knew what he would have to endure as his teachings angered those in power, mainly the Priests and Pharisees. So, after he healed people in the witness of others, raised people from the dead and all other miracles, he went to the cross to die for many to reconcile us back to God. God is not willing that any should perish. Because of Christ they will not have to.

06-13-2008, 04:37 AM	#1
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The Cross When exactly did the Cross become main stream in xianity? Do the theological and archaeological evidences match?

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

06-13-2008, 05:26 AM	#2
Deus Ex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,348	http://www.history.com/media.do?acti...ross_broadband A link to a short History Channel documentary on the cross.

06-15-2008, 07:15 AM	#6
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I must not quote wiki! I was suspicious about the wiki article because it was referring to the Catholic Encylopaedia, and there are a huge amount of complexities around this. So what is the reality of the catacombs and when was the cross introduced into xianity?

06-15-2008, 12:56 PM	#9
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Were there any mystery religions that had as a rite the initiate taking a cross and following the initiator?

06-15-2008, 01:26 PM	#10
CuriousToo Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Southern CA Posts: 10	Crucifiction on the cross was a form of Roman capital punishment. Jesus was not the only person ever crucified. When the Disciple Paul was to be crucified for preaching about Jesus, he asked to be placed upside down since he was not worthy to die like his Christ. The Romans obliged and crucified him upside down. It is significant to know what happened to Christ during his hours on the cross since the Old Testament described what would happen before Christ was born. An example being, "He will not suffer his legs to be broken". The soldiers would break the legs of those on the cross to hasten their death. The two who died beside Christ had their legs broken. When they came to Christ they saw that he was already dead. To make sure, they pierced his side. Jesus faced a cruel death as a innocent man. He endured the beating and lashes to his body. He fell in the street with weakness. Christ knew what he would have to endure as his teachings angered those in power, mainly the Priests and Pharisees. So, after he healed people in the witness of others, raised people from the dead and all other miracles, he went to the cross to die for many to reconcile us back to God. God is not willing that any should perish. Because of Christ they will not have to.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.