Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 07-31-2009, 01:59 PM

I agree that the original Christian eschaton/soteriology was this "New Jerusalem" descending onto Earth with all of those "asleep" in Jesus being woken up, but:

Quote:

The idea that Jesus' crucifixion saved the world is the betrayal of Christianity. Paul is clear in Rom 6, Jesus died once, he will never die again, death has no power over him and Christians worship the RISEN Christ. Worship of crucifixion was war propaganda for imperial conquest and holy war.

"But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" - 1 Cor 1:23

Unless they're going to argue that this is an interpolation.

IamJoseph · 07-31-2009, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

...

Did you know the cross was a Jewish symbol since 150 BCE when the Romans introduced crucifixion in Judea? The cross represented a warning Romans were around, and afixed on doors and worn on garments as a code.

I didn't know this, and I still don't know it. Do you have a source for this claim?

I sure do.

Quote:

http://www.kingsolomon.com/literary/...n/mikecook.htm [*]

[mod note - this is a dead link that goes to a NSFW humorous 404 error not found page]

In the reign of the Roman procurator, Gessius Florus, during the years 64-66 C.E., when the revolt against Rome began and Judea, crazed with pain, descended into madness, 3600 Jewish men, women and children were crucified.
If it is painful to imagine a grown man on the cross, imagine a pregnant woman or a child! Crucifixion was introduced into Judea by Varus, the legate of Syria, on his own responsibility; and shortly after the death of Herod he crucified 2,000 Jews. Such conduct he repeated in Germany in 9 CE against the Druids, when he served as consul there. He provoked a revolt of such magnitude for his behavior, the entire Roman army in Germany was destroyed by the uprising. The emperor Augustus declared it a "day of disaster," and marked it with yearly mourning.
Before this time, the symbolism of the cross was already familiar to Jews. According to the eminent scholar, Erwin Goodenough, "The Jews knew and used the sign of the cross ... as a token for eschatological protection." They carried amulets with crosses, with circles around them, or with dots in the interstices. The "X" or "+" had significance even for those Jews who lived in the Diaspora, in Rome itself. Discoveries of the tombs of Jewish and Roman bodies reveal these marks on their tombstones. Goodenough, however, believes that the "X" goes back to an earlier era than the Roman conquest of Judea, where it is found in Ezekiel as the distinctive mark of "TAW ." He points out that the Hebrew "TAW" was made as a cross, "X" or a "+" and connects this sign painted on the doors of the Hebrews in Egypt on the night of the Passover. He also speculates that it may have represented the sign of Yaweh.
By the first century C.E. Jews were familiar with the sign of the cross as a Jewish symbol, and with crucifixion as a Jewish death which by now powerfully shaped their collective psyches. So common was the sight of crucifixion for Jews during the Roman occupation that the cross acquired a heightened symbolic and religious anchor in their imaginations. The belief that a nail from a cross had healing powers was widespread and many Jews carried such nails. The rabbis even permitted them to carry the nails on the Sabbath. Conversely, and particularly interesting against this background, is the fact that neither the cross nor the theme of crucifixion was used by Christians until the fourth century.
Goodenough points out "that Christian art seems to have no crosses at all until the fourth century." The theme of crucifixion is absent from first century Christian art and absent from Christian catacombs, but it makes its appearance on Jewish tombs in catacombs in Rome. We are so accustomed to identify ing the cross and crucifixion with Christianity, that it is difficult to imagine a time when this was not so, or a time when the cross was a Jewish symbol.

IamJoseph · 07-31-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

"But we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" - 1 Cor 1:23
.

The reverse applies. The stumbling block was clearly made manifest when a new, independent and separated from Judaism religion emerged on the heels of christianity - and it denied the core doctrines of the Gospels: Islam. That's what I call a stumbling block.

I doubt that any Christian would accept the Gospels if they had 2000 years of monotheism: they even rejected Islam after just 300 years of belief. Rome invented those stories which they totally knew would never be accepted - and all of Europe believed it no questions asked: they even believed the blood libels and the Protocols!

IamJoseph · 07-31-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

"But we preach Christ crucified.

Is this not a lie-by-omission? My history lessons says 1.2 Million Jews were crucified, and that a Jesus figure cannot claim self sacrifice here - there was a decree of Heresy hovering in Judea: how can one Jew claim self sacrifice when he would have had no chance of escaping this decree - is it suggested Rome would entertain him to please the bad Jews? :constern01:

spamandham · 07-31-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I sure do.

Quote:

http://www.kingsolomon.com/literary/...n/mikecook.htm

That isn't a credible source. Here at FRDB, when someone requests a source, they are referring to something substantial, for example, translations of an extant early text, not merely a bunch of conjecture from some random web site sponsored by Bevis and Butthead.

spamandham · 07-31-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And no one thinks that Paul wrote Hebrews.

If Paul wrote Hebrew the writing would be in Hebrew.

"Hebrews" is the name of a book in the New Testament. Toto was not referring to the language Paul wrote in. There really is no doubt he wrote in Greek*.

*Paul that is, not Toto

IamJoseph · 07-31-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

If Paul wrote Hebrew the writing would be in Hebrew.

"Hebrews" is the name of a book in the New Testament. Toto was not referring to the language Paul wrote in. There really is no doubt he wrote in Greek*.

*Paul that is, not Toto

I knew that. Paul knew Hebrew - why would he write about Hebrews in Latin - the point.

IamJoseph · 07-31-2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I sure do.

That isn't a credible source. Here at FRDB, when someone requests a source, they are referring to something substantial, for example, translations of an extant early text, not merely a bunch of conjecture from some random web site sponsored by Bevis and Butthead.

Other sources are available. But the Hebrew is the world's most credible writings, marking the antithesis of anything from Europe. There is absolutely no good motive to associate Jews with the cross - which mass murdered more innocent humans than any other sign. If it is in the Jewish writings - believe it. :wave:

spamandham · 07-31-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

"Hebrews" is the name of a book in the New Testament. Toto was not referring to the language Paul wrote in. There really is no doubt he wrote in Greek*.

*Paul that is, not Toto

I knew that. Paul knew Hebrew - why would he write about Hebrews in Latin - the point.

Huh? Imagine for a moment that the book in the NT were not named "Hebrews" but was instead name "A bunch of Stuff". Let's see how what you just posted would read:

I knew that. Paul knew Hebrew - why would he write about "A bunch of Stuff" in Latin - the point.

spamandham · 07-31-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

That isn't a credible source. Here at FRDB, when someone requests a source, they are referring to something substantial, for example, translations of an extant early text, not merely a bunch of conjecture from some random web site sponsored by Bevis and Butthead.

Other sources are available.

You are welcome to cite something credible, if you wish to be taken seriously :wave:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.