sotto voce

'But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.' 2 Pe 2:1-3 NIV

Those church fathers.

Sheshbazzar

An apt description of what the MOTHER CHURCH did, and what all of her HARLOT-WHORE daughters heard and learned from her.

That is why they are all alike called 'Christians'.


STOP and think about what your Bible tells you; 'ALL that believed were together,.. and ALL WERE OF ONE ACCORD"

Acts 2:44 & 46, & 5:12, -before- and -until- some began to be first called 'Christians' at Antioch. (Acts 11:6)

And these, taking up this foreign name 'Christian', then soon turned themselves against all other Believers whom did not fall into line and do likewise. Followed by century after century of 'Christian' division, strife, and murder.

The UNITY of the Faith persisted until men began to call themselves 'Christians' and fill up the world with their fabricated 'Pauline' epistles.

But by god, they've got, kept, and earned their -damned- name! :constern01::devil1:

(While they forgot the ONLY Name that could ever deliver them from their darkness and strife.)


ששבצר העברי





.

Bingo the Clown-O

Maybe it has nothing to do with letters.

It looks like some Jews around the turn of the era expected two messiahs (not one). Maybe the cross represented the two branches of the olive trees in Zechariah 4:11 LXX. Maybe it represented the two “anointed ones” who “stand by the Lord of the whole earth” in verse 4:14. Maybe it represented the peaceable split between the two messiahs (the division of powers) in verse 6:13.

stephan huller

Unlikely

Chili

But I think I understand that Shesh as the name "Hebrew" (in your example) is more than a name, and mathematical and geometrical statement combined and perhaps more like an emotion.

It is a wholistic word that cannot be divided to say what it really means, like love, for example, as the vapor of life itself. And for sure not. I do not know anything about it but read your posts on the meaning of that word itself and so I tried to understand.

Oh., yes I know that English is very usefull as analytic.

Duvduv

How did the original Chi-Rho representing Xristos and other things develop into the regular cross, and does the Chi-Rho represent the idea of Tav/Tau as an X in terms of the positioning of Jesus on the original cross?
After reading a bit about it online, maybe I am beginning to understand how ideas concerning the celestial Christ may have something to do with astrology, and references in the epistles to crucifixion have something to do with in relation to the ch-rho.

Chili

Sorry but the trouble with that 'harlot whore' as that she is the sum total of the wisdom in the world even today, and so is visible to all. We have no disagreement here, but the problem is that since she is also mother of us all, many or most just rip away with whatever they can get and start a religion of their own, and that is when the fight begins.

Boethius has a nice page on this in Book I first page of "The Consolation Of Philosophy." Not an easy read as it would not be easy from Her, as the most enigmatic of them all.

He is one such line: . . . "Her dress had been torn by the hands of marauders who each had carried off such pieces as he could get."

Duvduv

Let me see if I understand something correctly. The apologists would tell us that Constantine adopted the historical Christ (at least as a lucky charm) for his war, using the Chi-Rho as his insignia rather than either THE Cross (Roman Catholic or Orthodox) of the crucifixion, based on his "vision."

Wouldn't this suggest that in fact his "vison" did not concern a risen historical Jesus at all, but some kind of celestial being whose sign was the Chi-Rho instead?

Then comes along the first Creed of Nicea, which doesn't mention a crucifixion at all but merely that this being "came down" (from where to where?) to be incarnate (how?) to save mankind.

Something doesn't make sense here. Either the version of the incarnated man as a physical being in the Nicene Creed format needs to be taken with a grain of salt OR Constantine believed that the incarnate Christ was crucified on the Chi-Rho form of cross, which seems rather hard to picture.

Duvduv

http://www.designboom.com/history/cross_2.html.

This is a link to a discussion of many types of crosses. Notice the St. Andrew Cross where the person is crucified in the X Tau position. Is it to be assumed that when the epistles or gospels talk about crucifixion they mean the Latin Cross only simply because it was relevant to the dominant power - Rome? One can even wonder whether the reference to crucifixions of the Pharisees mentioned by Josephus ordered by Jannaeus refers to the Latin Cross form.
But how would someone be crucified on the Orthodox cross?

Sheshbazzar

Slice 'em into eight pieces?