GakuseiDon

On Antinous: he was born after 100 CE. I don't know when that statue was made, but it couldn't have been before then, at the least.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels:

For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Dr. Larry Taylor:

How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�

Johnny Skeptic: Considering the deplorable state of Christian history during the past 2,000 years, if the Bible is true, it is no wonder that the follwoing scriptures were written:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Well, the notion of "once saved, always saved" just flew right out of the window. Matthew 7:22 is talking about actual Christians, not professing Christians. Jesus said that Satan cannot cast out Satan, so if he was right, Matthew 7:22 has to be talking about Christians.

The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory.

For about 90% of the time since the founding of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians favored slavery and the subjugation of women.

Two good examples of uncivilized and retrograde behavior by modern fundamentalist Christians are as follows:

When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered busing decades ago, the state of Virginia closed down the public school system so that white children wouldn't have to go to school with black children. Such an atrocity could only have happened in a state with a high percentage of fundamentalist Christians.

About ten years ago, believe it or not, a gay couple were arrested in Texas for having sex in the privacy of their own homes. Again, such an atrocity could only have happened in a state with a high percentage of fundamentalist Christians. The gay couple sued the state of Texas, and eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in Texas and twelve other states, predictably mostly Southern Bible Belt States. The two exceptions were Utah and Idaho, both of which have a high percentage of fundamentalist Christians.

Religious fundamentalism is usually trouble no matter what the religion. Fundamentalist Christians claim that they believe in "live and let live," but they really don't.

epepke

Are you sure that isn't a grenade?

Anyway, with all those babies ritually sacrificed by Christians, ground up into Matzohs or sucked dry through the penis by Jews, and strapped to bombs by Muslims, it's a wonder there are any left.

Agemegos

Antinoös wasn't even born until about AD 110. He died about AD 130, and was deified by order of the emperor Hadrian. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous. What's more, it is a bizarre misrepresentation to describe him as the god of homosexuality, or indeed of anything in particular. He was often depicted with attributes of Osiris or of Dionysus, and that suggests a connection with rebirth more than anything else--but his cult was entirely artificial, and existed only at the command of the emperor.

To claim his cult as evidence of anything pre-dating Christianity is sheer ignorance or deceit.

Kosh

Pssst..... don't ya know those weren't "true Christians" ?

Agemegos

It reads as irony to me, too. And I'm not Christian. But perhaps being Australians GakuseiDon and I are both over-exposed to ironical expressions.

GakuseiDon

Actually, I wonder if Tertullian isn't evidence against the idea that crosses were worshipped by non-Christians (or at least the Romans, anyway).

Tertullian uses quite a few words to claim that pagans worshipped crosses, but note the lengths he has to go to in order to make examples (reproduced below). If there were known groups, it would have been easier just to mention them, rather than try to manufacture examples, as follows:

The heathens themselves made much of crosses in sacred things; nay, their very idols were formed on a crucial frame. As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure... even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross...

The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants... in like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.

It seems Tertullian was pretty light on more appropriate and straight-forward examples.

Malachi151

That would assume that Tertullian knew everything that there was to know, a pretty bad assumption.

The evidence that the story of Jesus being crucified on across comes much latter in Christianity is already overwhelming, I was just presenting this as one more piece of evidence.

I already provided two links to information about cross worship:

http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p039.html

http://www.albatrus.org/english/paga...n_of_cross.htm

It has already been verified that the earliest copies of the New Testament descriptions of the killing of Jesus in the gospels ave him being killed on a pole.

Acts in the NT still says that Jesus was killed by hanging him from a tree.

There are no early images of the bodily crucifixion of Jesus. Images of the cross far predate images of his bodily crucifixion.

And I am presenting this description of why the Christains worshiped the cross by Tertullian as just one more piece of evidence in a series of evidences that support the view that worship of the cross predates the notion that Jesus was killed on a cross.

This seems to me, at this point, to be a pretty solid case.

If you care to provide evidence to contradict this position then pleae do so.

Mentioning that Antinous came after the development of Christianity isn't a refutiation of these major claims, I just included that picture based on a quick google image search. You can forget the Antinous reference, although it does demonstrate that "pagans" also used the symbol. The reference to Antinous is not important to the main point here.

As for the baby eating, again I have asked for references to quotes by Tertullian where he denies the practice. I still don't by the claim that, in a documen thtta is otherwise serious, he used sarcaism on this one topic to the point that he never refuted it. Nowhere in his entire addressing of this topic does he refute it, the only thing he does is claim that it is true. Your only claim is that he must have been joking. I don't find this convincing in the least.

GakuseiDon

I'm using Tertullian as a source for beliefs at the turn of the third century. If he was trying to show that the Romans used the sign of the cross, but he couldn't point to any other religions that worshipped that exact shape, then I suggest that one reason was because he didn't know of any.

IIUC these are all synonyms for the cross.

Paul has Jesus crucified, as does Justin Martyr. These accounts predate Tertullian.

What about the quote from Tertullian I gave earlier? He appears to be denying it - I've bolded the key passages:

During the interval there have been so many criminals; so many crosses have obtained immortality; so many infants have been slain; so many loaves steeped in blood; so many extinctions of candles; so many dissolute marriages. And up to the present time it is mere report which fights against the Christians. No doubt it has a strong support in the wickedness of the human mind, and utters its falsehoods with more success among cruel and savage men.

Malachi151

It may wel be that he didn't know of any, but how many people are ignorant of the origins of beliefs? To use Tertullian as an authority on "pagan" religions is quite silly.

Secondly, even if you were to assume that no pagans ever used the cross as a symbol, that does nothing to advance your argument that the symbol of the cross is a product of the crucifixion of Jesus on a cross.

The fact remains that the Christians were using the cross as a symbol before the cross was ever associated with being the instrument of Jesus' death.

Oh come on, you have to do better than that.

Provide references to confirmed correctly translated texts from the 1st or 2nd century.... .... ....

I give up on this one and will just go ahead on conceed on it, though I still find the text awefully suspect. Its not really an important element in Biblical history, so its not a big deal.

The bigger deal is the issue of the cross, because it is a fundmaental aspect of Christain belief.

The fact is that the idea of Jesus being crucified on a cross comes in aroud the 6th or 7th century. The worship of the cross far predates the idea that Jesus died on one.