gurugeorge

Yes, exactly, religious people aren't as fastidious as our dear scholars here, and never have been. They'll sometimes take any old coincidence as a "sign" of some sort

stonewall1012

This is very interesting.. I'm a little disappointed however. If we're trying to find a connection with Chronos that's fine. It may work as a theory. Proposing back and forth about where it might have come from is helpful to a point... but the fleshing out of the theory is where the rubber meets the road. That's what I was hoping would happen: that we would take the theory and then flesh it out. Or is this all we do here? Just throw out ideas and see if someone buys it? I see the connection. I understand how one could arrive at the connection. I would like to see how it works. Give it flesh and bones, so to speak.

I'll admit I'm a little bereft on Chronos worship-the whens and the wheres- including the who's.
I did some preliminary research and found some interesting things:
Are we referring to the Titan Cronus or the god Chronos?
I found a possible quote by Cicero around the 1st Century where he may have used the belief in Cronus as an example of a "legends.. superstitions of all sorts." I'll need to do more research but initially it seems to give a window of belief... Perhaps by the 1st Century belief in Cronus was mostly done?
Or had it converted into belief in mythra?
don't know enough.
But what IS lacking is the connection.
How did the name Chronos or Cronus change from a name to a title? Christ
Who did this and when?
While the mystery religions did flourish how did Chronos/Cronus worship transition into Jewish belief in order to morph into Christ worship?

Jeffrey Gibson

What Kronos worship? Please show me where and when Kronos was given cult in the first century CE (or in the 1st, second, third or 4th throught the 8th century BCE, for that matter), let alone that this cult had mysteries. Same for Chronos/time.

Jeffrey

stonewall1012

Jeffery, I am asking a question based upon an assertion that there is a connection between (Chronos,Kronos, Cronus) worship and Christianity. Like you I am attempting to flush out this belief. So far what we have is the equniox cross and the Sun the CHI and RHO and that Chronos, and Christos both begin with CH. (bear with me I'm summarizing here). Most of what we have is conjecture, supposition based upon the idea that belief in Christ had to have originated in some other belief system merging into the Jewish faith to make Christianity.
By asking these questions I am attempting to flesh out how this might have worked- historically speaking.

Toto

The connection between Chronos and Christ was an offbeat suggestion from Clivedurdle. AFAIK there was no cult of Chronos around the first century.

There is a separate suggestion that is not quite as offbeat, that the Chi-Rho symbol has some mystical meaning going back at least to Plato, involving astrological or sun symbols. Chi-Rho was also used as an abbreviation for other words that started with those letters, including the Greek word for Time, which seems to be the only connection between Christ and Chronos.

All of which is just a bit off topic.

Jeffrey Gibson

How could it have "worked out" "historically speaking" , even granting the numbskull idea that Χριστός -- which is an adjective (unless it has the article) meaning "to be rubbed on, used as ointment or salve" derived from the verb χρίω (which meant "to touch the surface of a body slightly, esp. of the human body, graze" and thus rub, anoint with scented unguents or oil, wash with colour, wound" --- could ever have been derived by Greek speakers from the name Kronos, let alone from the noun (χρόνος) that meant "time" and was known and used by Christians to mean "time", if "historically" there was no cult of χρόνος for Christianity to be derived from?

Jeffrey

Reason

Easy to see how a quick read could lead to one mistaking "chronos" for "christos" or vice-versa.

Jeffrey Gibson

Really? Do you think someone literate in Greek (let alone a speaker of it) would think so?

Jeffrey

stonewall1012

Jeffery: How could it have "worked out" "historically speaking"
I don't know how it would have worked out historically, that's what I was attempting to flush out. You have to know this but: most post here are concerned with proving the assertion that Christianity has its roots in the obscure combination of Jewish belief and some other (as far as I know) religion that explains the rise of Christianity which obviously uses Jewish terms but in a very different manner.

I don't exactly understand why this is necessary. Jesus could have been a raving lunatic and had his "apostles" make up a whole bunch of stuff about him. It would explain why they thought he was divine without "having" to believe he was God's Son.

Instead people like Mr. Rice play silly games with history. Paul’s letters are not just "interpolated" they are "made up" entirely. Never mind that Paul’s letters and even the Gospels have an impending "doom" apocalyptic expectation in them which forged authors would have known not only was unlikely but impossible because they were living in the time that an immediate return would have occurred.

A person could believe that Jesus existed, believe the gospel writers were at least partially accurate at least of his teaching, they could even believe his "miracles" were staged or hoaxed or what ever and still be an atheist. They could hold that Paul’s letters are accurate but only represent his belief about Jesus.

Instead we have conspiracy theories like MR. Rice that contends (incorrectly I might add) that ALL evidence before the third century has vanished because the Council of Nicaea "forced" everyone to come to an agreement under Constantine. Never mind that by the third century the church wasn't even in power yet... Never mind that Constantine very probably was Arian in his belief about "Christ" and that after Nicaea there was considerable upheaval concerning the direction the church would take. Never mind that it was hardly a "given" that what is now called "Orthodoxy" would indeed "win" even after Nicaea.

Believe me- I am just as confused as you... But these games are considered "historical" inquiry here. Personally I find it disturbing, I find these historical games more disturbing than atheism. Disbelief in Jesus occurred 2,000 years ago and it will more than likely continue into the next 2,000 years. Disbelief doesn't bother me it's the historical games I find distasteful. To me it represents selective skepticism and destruction of history as a proper field.
If one examines my posts here you will see I've never asserted any kind of belief that history "must" make about Jesus of Naz. esp. concerning his nature.
Yet my defense of these documents as originating in the 1st century is met with near laughter. I don't understand it either... but I have to defend history as I understand it.

Toto

stonewall - it's Price, not Rice, and you are misrepresenting him and a lot of other people here.