Sheshbazzar

Similar. But not the same;
A 'MARK' ? or The 'NAME' ?

Remember also the imagery of Nehushtan, that snake-on-a-stick that Moses lifted up to deliver the people, and what became of it in the end.
Look at what has been wrought for 2000 years under The Mark and Sign of The Cross.
Are not the screams of the victims louder than all of the chanting and singing?
Do they not yet ring out, and echo, louder that the largest of brass bells?
Who has ears that will hear, or eyes that will see, or a heart that will know, which way is yashar?.

You say.

And which will you bear? The MARK and the Sign of The Mother of Whores?
Or The NAME which is written, and where will it be written?

You say.

stephan huller

I guess my question should have been - what does tav stand for if tet (Samaritan pronunciation 'tit') = tebel or qof = qadosh? I am not sure that tamym is the only possibility.

Toto

I can't think of the sign of the cross without thinking of that scene in Zorba the Greek, where the older French courtesan dies, and someone asks Zorba if they should get a priest. He says, don't bother, she crosses herself with four fingers (Greek Orthodox cross themselves with three) so he won't come.

Disputes over the number of fingers to use when crossing oneself have lead to schisms among believers. But none of this seems to be related to the origins of the ritual.

Sheshbazzar

Questions about Cain.

What did Cain do -to have recieved the MARK?
Do you think Cain's MARK signified Divine approval of Cain's works?

Chili

The cross has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, and nothing at all, as the very sins that we commit must be the cross to die on and so 'their aim' is to encourage sin to make that cross become real to us as the sinner on the cross, . . . then as hunchback to the notre dame in us who in turn will lead us to our own Beth-le-hem.

Chili

Three is trinity, 4 is after completion or after Coronation.

Sheshbazzar

My friend Chili, Perhaps in the English alphabet that applies, but not in Hebrew.
In the Hebrew every cypher serves the dual function of being both a number and a letter, as well having a 'symbolic' association.
Thus 'aleph' the first of the 22 cyphers serves as the NUMBER 1 and as the equivalent of our vowel LETTER 'A', and 'symbolically' represents an 'OX'. Every cypher of Hebrew has this threefold application.

The forms used in the Proto-Hebrew and Early Paleo-Hebrew letters could also be so written by those who were trained, as to form, contain, and convey complex mathematical and geometrical relationships.

ששבצר

My 'name' "Sheshbazzar", is a name, but is also a inviolable mathematical and geometrical statement.

.

sotto voce

In the Bible view, Cain represents all, at some time. The meaning of the mark of Cain is found in the New Testament here:

'He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.' 2 Pe 3:9 NIV

Cain was not destroyed as soon as he had done evil. He was given the opportunity to amend his ways (to become like Abel) by the giving of the mark.

Abel was accepted because his sacrifice was of killed animals, not vegetables:

'In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.' Heb 9:22 NIV

So, according to the Bible, to be accepted, the cross or 'blood' of Christ is necessary. The sign of the cross in biblical terms would be counted as good works consequent on gratitude for forgiveness, such as humility, kindness, patience, willingness to forgive, self-control, etc.

Those who cross themselves physically are, ironically, without gratitude, because they are forever uncertain that they will ever be forgiven, even on their deathbeds.

That's the Bible view, anyway. Historically, others disagreed, as predicted by all the NT writers bar one.

stephan huller

I can't think about the sign of the cross without thinking how useless the modern ceremony must be in terms of magical efficacy :constern01: considering the original letter which has these 'magical characteristics' isn't being made any longer. This is what interests me about religion. I try not to attack belief and believers because I am so certain that a cold rational view of the tradition has the system fall on its own sword so to speak.

Whereas a kabbalist might argue that the letters or signs or symbols 'bring to mind' something which is necessary for redemption etc the Christian belief has degenerated into such a hocus pocus superstition that's embarrassing. At one time the Christian religion resembled Jewish mysticism. For example Sephardic Jews typically have meals where certain elements are made into the shape of letters and they eat them and presumably the 'idea' being eaten has certain magical properties.

I don't believe in this, but there is a chain of thought which - even if ridiculous - develops from a semblance of logic. The Christian 'sign of the cross' is incorrectly made. The crucifixes which adorn the altar is wrong. So how does any of this have power any longer? That's my interest.

If you can go from a tav or saltire cross to a Roman letter T why not make the number 5? Why not draw a picture of an elephant? This is Irenaeus's argument against the Marcosians but it can actually be turned around against the orthodox.

The Catholic argument and perhaps all original faiths (i.e. which can be traced to Nicaea) might be that 'believing' in the Cross is the important thing. But then surely the 'sign of the Cross' per se has no power. You could draw anything and then 'think' or believe in Jesus or something like this. It's just an exercise. Of course this is an innovation developing from these people being so alienated from the original truth that they are grasping at straws.

tanya

link?

Which "church father"?

So far as I am aware, the Greek word is stavros, which means stake, not cross. The Hebrew, again, as is so often the case with Stephan's posts, is utterly irrelevant.

Christianity is a Greek, not Hebrew religion. Christianity adopts lots of Jewish nonsense, but at its heart, it is a pagan tradition, not a monotheistic portrait.

There is nothing in harmony with Judaism relevant to the concept of obtaining eternal life in heaven, by paying the priests, or "doing good works", or "having faith in the divinity of Jesus". Judaism (including its Islamic variety) demands obedience to the law. Christianity, all flavors, ignores the law.

It is pointless to argue about the meaning of the cross, it is nothing more than another absurd symbol, like the fish, used to portray fundamental concepts to the illiterate, pagan, patrons of the church. They wouldn't have known the Phoenician alphabet, or its derivative: Hebrew, if it came up out of the sea and bit them right in the forehead.