Dave31

Once again you miss the point, deliberately, GD. Again, the point is not that anyone is saying that the Romans took the gods of other cultures, threw them to the ground and nailed them to a wooden cross. The point is that around the Mediterranean of the time there were depictions of many different gods and goddesses in CRUCIFORM, in the shape of a CROSS, as Tertullian clearly admits and as Acharya has interpreted PROPERLY, because that is the exact point HE was trying to make. Stop libeling Acharya, GD, because you are simply inaccurate, but you already know that don't you.

As another poster says, there's nothing new or unusual about Christianity. When the creators of Christianity went to imitate the Pagan religions, they needed to have a reason for the familiar image of the god and goddess on the cross - which, by the way, often symbolized PROTECTION, as a logical idea that you would know, GD, if you actually studied the issue instead of pretending to know all about it. So, they made up a story about their fictional godman having been "crucified" in the sense of thrown to the ground and nailed to a cross. Then they were able to depict HIM in CRUCIFORM as well.

I don't expect you to get it, GD, because you badly misinterpret and misread so much, but others here are clearly understanding the point, so you're fooling no one with your silly comparisons to the Pillsbury Doughboy. You think the Doughboy is pre-Christian? That shows not only the level of your knowledge of history but also the level you will stoop to shore-up the xian faith at all costs.

What's really funny is that from Tertullian's arguments the Pagans evidently found the story of Jesus on a cross as comical in their day as your Pillsbury Doughboy image. That's probably why we don't find artistic images of it until the 5th century after the outlawing and destruction of paganism -

"Gimme that ol' time religion..." - video
Outlining the Pagan Destruction Chronology (314-870 C.E)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzbx...e=channel_page

aa5874

And my point is there is no corrobarative information that "Paul" is arguing with a Corinthian faction.

It cannot be assumed that in the first century, before the death of Nero, that a writer called Paul discussed the crucifixion of a creature called Jesus with anyone.

It is not prudent at all to accept the NT at face value when it is a well known fact that forgeries, interpolations and massive chronological errors are found within the NT itself.

Well, that fact may mean that the death and resurrection of Jesus was the central theme. The writer spent more time on the central issues.[/b]

It was fiction, the resurrection of Jesus, that appeared to have the most significance, not the manner of death.

Romans 10:9 - 1Cor 15:17 -

fatpie42

GD has already answered this. He explains that Tertullian does not give any examples of gods and goddesses in cruciform, that what he claims to be cruciform is the banner upon which images would be displayed (not the depiction of the gods and goddesses themselves) and that the only example so far given by Acharya is not in cruciform either.

At the moment it is not obvious that Tertullian claims that there were many gods in cruciform at all. Can you provide evidence to the contrary rather than just telling GD to 'stop being so silly'? It would benefit those on the sidelines too, after all.

But:
1) We still need some evidence that pagans actually depicted their gods and goddesses in cruciform and
2) They did not make up crucifixion to fulfil this purpose. It was a method of execution used at the time by the Romans.

Yes, there is nothing new or unusual about Chrisitianity. The idea of gods dying and rising is found elsewhere. However, the claim that pagan gods were often depicted in cruciform has as yet to be demonstrated.

I am happy to accept and argue for a mythical Jesus, but Acharya's particular arguments are looking bogus at this point. It seems to me that GD is absolutely right to point out these problems.

aa5874

Philo was part of a team of Jews, in fact based on Josephus, Philo was the principal person of that group in the embassy to Rome.

And, based on Josephus, the teams were choosen by the affected inhabitants. It is therefore reasonable to think that Philo's views with respect to Jewish laws and tradition was acceptable to those who selected him as the leader of the team to Rome.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.8.1 It is now abundantly clear, based on Josephus, that Philo's views on images of Caius and worshipping Caius as a God was regarded as abominable and impious by Jews as well.

Amaleq13

From Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?:

But there is nothing in the evidence from Paul himself that Jesus was ever thought to be God Incarnate while residing on Earth....It was standard Jewish understanding that every "Messiah" ("Anointed" and "King") was adopted by God at his anointing and thus became a Son of God, including David himself.[3] And the earliest Christians made this universal: Paul says every Christian, through joining Christ's spirit, became an adopted son of God.[4] There is nothing un-Jewish about this...

...Nor was the idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God a novel idea among the Jews. Paul's contemporary, Philo, interprets the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 6:11-12 in just such a way. In the Septuagint this says to place the crown of kingship upon "Jesus," for "So says Jehovah the Ruler of All, 'Behold the man named 'Rising', and he shall rise up from his place below and he shall build the House of the Lord'." This pretty much is the Christian Gospel. Philo was a Platonic thinker, so could not imagine this as referring to "a man who is compounded of body and soul," but thought it meant an "incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image" whom "the Father of the Universe has caused to spring up as the eldest son. In another passage, he calls this son the firstborn," and says "he who is thus born" imitates "the ways of his father."[7] That sure sounds a lot like what the Christians were saying--and this from a Jew! Not all Jews were Platonists, either. Simply couple Philo's idea with the more common Jewish belief that the Spirit of God can "rest upon" ordinary human beings, and in fact must do so in the case of prophets and kings, and you have the early Christian Christology...

...Therefore, we can prove nothing un-Jewish about what Christians taught in the first century...

...In the words of John Barclay, "there was no universal template of 'normative' Judaism," even in Palestine, but especially in the Hellenized Diaspora.[8]...

Amaleq13

Then your claim is logically limited to that group of Jews.

aa5874

Your statement is absolutely illogical and unreasonable.

We are dealing with Jewish Laws and tradition, not with some isolated personal issues with Philo.

It is absolutely clear that it was not a Jewish tradition to worship images or men as Gods.


Antiquities of the Jews 18.8.1

fatpie42

Amaleq's comments were certainly not illogical and I don't really see what you find so unreasonable.

Yes, it was against Jewish tradition to worship images or men as gods, but treating certain men as divine was not frowned upon by Jews otherwise the false messiahs which Josephus refers to would never have found a following.

aa5874

Well, just show me where these false messiahs of yours asked Jews to worship them as Gods.

Can you show me where in Josephus a false messiah with a following of Jews asked the very Jews to worship them or their images as Gods?

If you cannot then the illogical is confirmed.

fatpie42

Show me where Jesus asked for that...