Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 09:17 PM

It's amazing to see how many 'average' Muslims take the idea that Jesus was not crucified and Judas was put in his place as the very word of the gospel. There numbers are probably as great or greater than those who believe Jesus was actually crucified. I can still remember sitting in the seats of the San Diego Safari Park talking to a Kenyan about this. He 'knew' that Judas was crucified on the cross because 'the gospel' told him so.

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 09:22 PM

Here are some earlier examples in Islamic literature. http://books.google.com/books?id=ht1...ied&f=falseThe understanding is clearly pre-Islamic. Notice how the idea of the 'semblance' is so important here.

Basilides apparently thought that Simon was crucified in Jesus place. There is also a similar story in the Clementine Literature about the 'semblance' of Simon changing the appearance of believers in Simon into Simon Magus.

spin · 01-14-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Sorry, but I see elements of the synoptics and John in the Gospel of Barnabas. So to me, it appears to be derivative, and late.

Reading skills. Use them.

I do use them

You're doing a good job of fooling people here then.

Reread this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In case people aren't aware of the Islamic tradition in this regard here is only the most popular version of the 'substitution' of Judas for Jesus. It is certainly not the oldest:

The topic is the Islamic tradition in regard to the substitution of Judas. Islam as everyone knows didn't get going until several centuries after christianity, so the fact that the Islamic tradition per se is late is a given in the discussion. Complaining that the gospel of Barnabas is derivative is simply irrelevant to the discussion. It has as much use as saying a horse has four legs. A closer reading would have saved you the effort of letting everyone know you've come to the astounding conclusion that the gospel of Barnabas is derivative. Well, I found it astounding.

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 10:12 PM

Indeed, the question for me has always been why would the Islamic tradition need to invent a tradition of substitution? It can't be owing to some 'plot' to subvert Christianity. The ideas are already lurking in the Quran and clearly go back to the tradition of Basilides and what is mentioned about Judas in Irenaeus. The substitution tradition is certainly pre-Islamic.

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 11:27 PM

Hey everyone. I think I have solved the mystery of Clement's reference to 'three hundred' being 'the Lord's sign.' Just to recap, while the Epistle to Barnabas says something about the Tau in 318 symbolizing the cross. Yet I noticed that Clement never says anything about the Tau being the cross. Rather Clement thinks that 'three hundred' (T = 300) representing 'the Lord's sign.' While most scholars simply brush the non-existent reference to the Cross aside thinking that 'he must mean the same thing.' Yet I noticed that Origen also refrains from referencing the cross and throws out the same numerical formulas.

Well guess what. Origen and Clement's analysis goes back to Philo not the cross. Philo says that the number 300 symbolizes the 'perfect man':

Quote:

Questions and Answers on Genesis II.5

Why did God give the measures of the ark in the following manner; the length to be of three hundred cubits, and the breadth thereof to be fifty cubits, and the height to be thirty cubits: and above it was to be raised to a point in one cubit, being brought together gradually like an obelisk? (#Ge 6:15). It was necessary that so vast a work should be constructed in conformity with literal directions, in order that so many animals, some of them of vast size, should be received into it, as individuals of each class were introduced with the food necessary for them; but if the matter is considered properly with reference to its symbolical meaning, then, for the comprehension of the formation of our body, we shall require to make use not of the quantity of cubits, but of the certain principles and proportions which are observed in them. But the proportions which are contained in them are of sixfold, and double, and other portions are added. For three hundred is six times as many as fifty, and ten times as many as thirty; and again fifty is by two thirds a larger number than thirty. Such then are also the proportions of the body; for if any one should choose to investigate the matter and inquire into it carefully in all its points, he will find that man is made in an exact proportion of measurement, neither being too long or too little; and if a string be let down from his head to his feet, he will find that to reach that distance it requires a string six times as long as the width of his chest, and ten times as long as the depth of his ribs and their breadth as a second part of depth added thereto. Such is the certain proportion, received in accordance with nature, of the human body formed on exact measurement of the most excellently made men, who are incorrect neither in the way of excess nor of defect. But again, it was with great wisdom and propriety that God ordained the summit to be completed in one cubit; for the upper part of the ark imitates the unity of the body; the head being forsooth as the citadel of the king, having for its inhabitant the chief of all, the intellect. But those parts which are below the head are divided into separate portions, as for instance into the hands, and in an especial degree into the lower parts, since the thighs, and legs, and feet are all kept distinct from one another, therefore whoever should wish to understand these matters, on the principle which I have pointed out, will easily comprehend the analogy of the cubits as I have related it. But above all things he must not be ignorant that each of these different numbers of cubits has separately a certain necessary proportion and principle, beginning with the first, those in the length of the ark. Therefore in its length it is composed of three hundred units, placed next to one another in continuation, according to the augmentation of units, from these twenty-four numbers, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twentyone, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four. But the twenty-fourth number is above all others a natural number, being distributed among the hours of day and night, and also among the characters of language, {2}{he is referring to the Greek alphabet, which consists of twenty-four letters.} and literal speech; and it is also compounded of three cubes, being complete, full, and compacted in equality. For the number three constantly exhibits, as belonging to itself, the first equality of all, having a beginning, and a middle, and an end, all of which are equal to one another; and eight is the first cube, because it again has declared its first equality with the rest. But the number twenty-four has likewise a great number of other virtues, since it is the substance of the number three hundred, as has been already pointed out; this then is its first virtue; and it has another, since it is compounded of twelve quadrangular figures, joined to one another by a continuous unity; and besides of two long figures, and twelve double figures, being forsooth compounded of twos separately increased by two and two. Therefore the angular numbers which make up together the twelve quadrangular figures are these; one, three, five, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-three; but the quadrangular figure combines the following numbers, one, four, nine, sixteen, twenty-five, thirty-six, forty-nine, sixty-four, eighty-one, a hundred, a hundred and twenty-one, and a hundred and twenty-four. But those angular numbers which compose the other long figures are these; one, four, six, eight, ten twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty, twenty-two, twenty-four, being twelve in all; and after these come the compound numbers, two, six, twelve, twenty, thirty, forty-two, fifty-six, seventytwo, ninety, a hundred and ten, a hundred and thirty-two, and a hundred and fifty-six; being also twelve. And if you put together the twelve quadrangular figures, you will find a hundred and forty-four, and if you add the other twelve long figures, you will find a hundred and fifty-six; and from the combination of the two you will get the number three hundred, and the concord of full, and complete, and perfect nature rising up to the equal and infinite harmony; for a complete and perfect nature is the maker of equality, according to the nature of a triangle; but the equal and the infinite are the factors of inequality, according to the composition of the other long figure. But the universe consists of a combination of equality and inequality, on which account the Creator himself, even amid the destruction of all earthly things, placed a sort of fixed pattern of stability in the ark. This then is enough to say about the number three hundred. We must now proceed to speak of the fifty cubits, on the following principle; for in the first place it is composed of the right angle of the quadrangular figures; for a right angle is compounded of three, four, and five; and the square of these is nine, sixteen, and twenty-five, the sum total of which when added together is fifty; in the second place, the perfect number fifty is composed of these four triangles linked together, one, three, six, ten; and again of these four equal quadrangles also united together, one, four, nine, sixteen; therefore these triangles when collected together make twenty; and the quadrangles make thirty; and twenty and thirty added together make fifty. But if the triangle and the quadrangle are added together, they make a heptangular figure: so that it is contained by its virtue in the number of fifty, that divine and holy number; to which the prophet had regard when he proclaimed the jubilee festival; and the whole of the jubilee year is free and a deliverer. The third theorem is three triangles beginning with the unit, connected together in a continuous series, and three cubes beginning also with the unit, and connected together in a similar manner, which together make fifty; the examples of the first are one, four, and nine, which make fourteen; the examples of the second are, one, eight, and twentyseven, which together make thirty-six; and the sum total of the two when added together is fifty. Again, thirty is in an especial manner a natural number, for as in the series of units the number three is, so is the number thirty in the series of decimals; and that makes up the cycle of the moon, being the collection of separate months in full delineation; secondly, it is composed of four numbers, which are united in the continual series of these quadrangular figures, one, four, nine, and sixteen, which together make up thirty; on which account it was not without some foundation and sufficient reason that Heraclitus called that number "generation," when he said: a man in thirty years from the time of his birth can become a grandfather, inasmuch as he arrives at the age of puberty in his fourteenth year, at which age he is capable of becoming a father; and at the end of the year his offspring arrives at the birth, and again in fifteen years more begets another offspring like himself; and out of these names of grandfathers, fathers, and sons, as also out of the names of grandmothers, mothers, and daughters, a generation complete in its offspring is produced.

In other words the claim that T represents the Cross is bullshit because first and foremost the T shaped Cross never appears in Christianity until the late fourth century. As we have seen the original Cross was a Chi Rho. Now we can see that the Epistle of Barnabas was edited in the fourth century.

DCHindley · 01-16-2012, 10:32 AM

As I am currently reforrmatting Crombie's ET of Origen's Against Celsus in order to make it easier to digest (Crombie's version is a wee tad too Victorian for my taste), might I correct you as to the number of books he wrote against Celsus? There are eight books.

FWIW, Celsus argues that IF a divine being had descended to earth, it would not take on a physical body like Jesus' is described to have possessed (eats, drinks, can be touched). Origen makes an extensive effort to refute this kind of idea. To me, Origen's insistence that Christ possessed of a real body is effectively an endorsement that he was a real person. I'm just saying, that is what Origen thinks, not necessarily what is true.

DCH

PS: How can anyone really read Crombie's translation in Ante Nicene Fathers, volume 4? The language is all Elizabethian, which makes wading through it like watching all 36 episodes of the HBO series "Deadwood". It takes up about 265 extremely dense pages in the printed ANF volume, all without even paragraph markers, and it doesn't help that each chapter does not always coincide with the points being made. Now I have already reformatted this to 370 pages by separating each sentence, color coding quoted/summarized text (red = Celsus directly, black underline = Origen's summaries of parts of Celsus' book, green = OT, blue = NT, purple = pagan writers like Plato, Homer, Herodotus, etc), and separating the quotes and descriptions from the refutations by offsetting the latter one step to the right. I am currently adding the sources of the citations to the reformatted text (putting them in brackets immediately after the color coded quotes/summaries, rather than footnotes/endnotes.

What a laborious task, but I think it will be worth it! There does not appear to be ANY other English Translations in the Public Domain, and not even a good analysis of the contents as far as I can tell (except maybe in Latin). Considering I have probably made about 20 passes through the book in the process described above, I am learning quite a bit about Celsus, Origen, how Greek philosophy was understood, and how the early church in Alexendria operated and taught. Still, I have not attempted any serious study of it ... yet! Bwahahahaa :angry:

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

One example of the problem was presented to Origen, by Celsus' On the True Discourse. Celsus constantly uses the noun σκολοψ (sharp stake, thorn or anything else pointed) to denote the cross, and the verb ανασκολοπίζω (impale, fix on a pole or spear) to denote crucify. Origen in his Contra Celsum himself used both those and the words σταυρος (pole, cross) and σταυροω (put on a pole, crucify).
...
Whew! Even if Origen believed solely in a celestial Jesus, who was crucified in the heavens on a Chi-Rho cross, he seems to spend a lot of energy and papyrus plants (six books!) refuting a criticism of the literalists' pseudo-historical Jesus and their pseudo-historical version of his crucifixion.

Celsus was said to have written his criticism around 150 CE. For Origen to write a six-volume apologetic refuting him in 225 CE shows the strength of Celsus' arguments even seventy-five years later. And judging from the preface, Origen's opus was an internal work not meant for outside reading.

andrewcriddle · 01-16-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

The last one strongly suggests a realistic crucifixion here on Earth. The kneeling figure on the right looks suspiciously like an Orthodox Priest. I'd say it's dated to the first half of the 300's CE (beginning of Byzantine Period).

Probably rather later after 500 CE see for example my old blog posts: more-about-early-christian-gems earliest-christus-patiens-image more-about-crucifixion-gem

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 01-16-2012, 12:23 PM

Looks to me like the Monster seen in Flatwoods, West Virginia, USA in 1952. Except for the "dress" on the monster, both figures appear to be floating, holding their arms out, have three fingers, and have the weird helmet or hat. Perhaps a Vorlon "encounter suit" from the Babylon 5 TV series.

The Blog entry that this picture came from (here) illustrates how an artifact depicting events (in this case the interviews with the witnesses and thepress follow-up immediately after the events) can be twisted around to satisfy ideological presuppositions, in this case those of academics.

Seriously though, this could be nothing more than a crudely impressed depiction of a gladiator in mid-leap, with the figure to the left running away and a spectator to the right clapping in applause (Stephan would say looking at the man's round buttocks). In other words, you have there a magical amulet depicting victory over one's adversaries, with the accompanying 'spell.' I really don't see where it says anything like "Jesus M(essias)."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

The last one strongly suggests a realistic crucifixion here on Earth. The kneeling figure on the right looks suspiciously like an Orthodox Priest. I'd say it's dated to the first half of the 300's CE (beginning of Byzantine Period).

Probably rather later after 500 CE see for example my old blog posts: more-about-early-christian-gems earliest-christus-patiens-image more-about-crucifixion-gem

Andrew Criddle

la70119 · 01-17-2012, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Seriously though, this could be nothing more than a crudely impressed depiction of a gladiator in mid-leap, with the figure to the left running away and a spectator to the right clapping in applause (Stephan would say looking at the man's round buttocks [Ed-M: Hahahaha :devil1: ]). In other words, you have there a magical amulet depicting victory over one's adversaries, with the accompanying 'spell.' I really don't see where it says anything like "Jesus M(essias)."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

The last one strongly suggests a realistic crucifixion here on Earth. The kneeling figure on the right looks suspiciously like an Orthodox Priest. I'd say it's dated to the first half of the 300's CE (beginning of Byzantine Period).

Probably rather later after 500 CE see for example my old blog posts: more-about-early-christian-gems earliest-christus-patiens-image more-about-crucifixion-gem

Andrew Criddle

Yes, I have no idea where they got "Jesus M(essias)" from.

A gladiator taking a leap and frightening the spectators certainly would explain everything. Except (maybe) for the absolute nudity of the gladiator. And what appears to be a nimbus around his head, representing the rays of the sun.

And a mid-Byzantine date (500, 600 or later CE) would not explain the nakedness of the subject either. Nor would it explain his contorted body with the arms spread out, the torso thrust forward and the feet slightly apart like one whose heels were nailed to the sides of the post. Orthodox Christians did NOT portray Christ like that.

Sta Sabina's Chapel, Ravenna, Italy, ca. 430 CE

Ivory Sarcaphagus, British Museum, ca. 450 CE

Reliquarium, Lateran Crucifixion, ca. 600 CE

Crucifixion, Rabbula, ca. 6th C. CE

Santa Maria, Antiqua Roma, Crocifissione Fresco, ca. 741-52 CE

Meister des Kroenungsakramentars ca. 950-1000 CE

Bamberg Apocalypse Crucifixion / Entombment, Early Medieval period.

My conclusion is that this could only have been created by someone with some kind of knowledge of how the Romans crucified. And its creator could have been mocking Constantine's "pets," the Orthodox.

I know this flies in the face of scholarly consensus, but in my opinion, if this is not an Early Byzantine or even Late Antique gem, then it is a fake.

la70119 · 01-17-2012, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

I do use them

You're doing a good job of fooling people here then.

No, just a person named 'spin.'

Quote:

Reread this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In case people aren't aware of the Islamic tradition in this regard here is only the most popular version of the 'substitution' of Judas for Jesus. It is certainly not the oldest:

The topic is the Islamic tradition in regard to the substitution of Judas.

As if I did not know that.

Quote:

Islam as everyone knows didn't get going until several centuries after christianity, so the fact that the Islamic tradition per se is late is a given in the discussion. Complaining that the gospel of Barnabas is derivative is simply irrelevant to the discussion. It has as much use as saying a horse has four legs. A closer reading would have saved you the effort of letting everyone know you've come to the astounding conclusion that the gospel of Barnabas is derivative. Well, I found it astounding.

But just saying "It is certainly not the oldest" does NOT reveal HOW late this Gospel of Barnabas is even when compared to the advent of Islam. We're talking 14th or 15th C. provenance here, comapred to the 7th C. for the Qu'ran and the 8th C. for the Hadith.

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

01-14-2012, 09:17 PM	#141
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It's amazing to see how many 'average' Muslims take the idea that Jesus was not crucified and Judas was put in his place as the very word of the gospel. There numbers are probably as great or greater than those who believe Jesus was actually crucified. I can still remember sitting in the seats of the San Diego Safari Park talking to a Kenyan about this. He 'knew' that Judas was crucified on the cross because 'the gospel' told him so.

01-14-2012, 09:22 PM	#142
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Here are some earlier examples in Islamic literature. http://books.google.com/books?id=ht1...ied&f=falseThe understanding is clearly pre-Islamic. Notice how the idea of the 'semblance' is so important here. Basilides apparently thought that Simon was crucified in Jesus place. There is also a similar story in the Clementine Literature about the 'semblance' of Simon changing the appearance of believers in Simon into Simon Magus.

01-14-2012, 10:12 PM	#144
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Indeed, the question for me has always been why would the Islamic tradition need to invent a tradition of substitution? It can't be owing to some 'plot' to subvert Christianity. The ideas are already lurking in the Quran and clearly go back to the tradition of Basilides and what is mentioned about Judas in Irenaeus. The substitution tradition is certainly pre-Islamic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.