Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mata leao · 01-01-2006, 05:31 PM

Clement of Alexandria in "Strom" VI inP.C.IX 305,calls the cross "the symbol of the Lord" and refers to Christians as "devotees of the cross", with Christians of the time using the symbol of the cross in conjunction with the invocation of their faith.

Amaleq13 · 01-01-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

Crosses and other lst centruy christian symbols are good circumstantial evidence of a linkage between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the gospels and the mission of the early church which was to feed the hungry, heal the sick and preach the gospel throughout the world.

I don't understand the connection but, given a mythical Jesus who was also crucified (eg Doherty's) and assuming you can establish the legitimacy of the alleged connection, I don't see how this constitutes evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.

mata leao · 01-01-2006, 05:46 PM

well, it would be one plausible Occam's Razor- esque explanation for why tens of thousands of people were walking around drawing and later wearing a symbol which directly memorialized the Roman method of torture and execution. Not normally an object of memorialization/affection/or devotion. also, please not the video of Jesus' death and resurrection(mel gibson) was not available in stores yet so the oral tradition and use of symbols had to do! history , especially ancient history is funny that way!

John A. Broussard · 01-01-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

well, it would be one plausible Occam's Razor- esque explanation for why tens of thousands of people were walking around drawing and later wearing a symbol which directly memorialized the Roman method of torture and execution. Not normally an object of memorialization/affection/or devotion. also, please not the video of Jesus' death and resurrection(mel gibson) was not available in stores yet so the oral tradition and use of symbols had to do! history , especially ancient history is funny that way!

Sorry, but I just don't understand this.

Do you mean that since so many people drank Jim Jones' Kool-Aid that proves that they were rational people and that Jim's preachings in any way correctly reported on the next life?

Amaleq13 · 01-01-2006, 06:06 PM

You still have not explained how the same results could not be obtained given a non-historical crucified Jesus.

Toto · 01-01-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

Clement of Alexandria in "Strom" VI inP.C.IX 305,calls the cross "the symbol of the Lord" and refers to Christians as "devotees of the cross", with Christians of the time using the symbol of the cross in conjunction with the invocation of their faith.

Are you sure? In Strom VI on Peter Kirby's site I don't find that quote. I do find

Quote:

Now there are some who say that three hundred cubits are the symbol of the Lord's sign; and fifty, of hope and of the remission given at Pentecost; and thirty, or as in some, twelve, they say points out the preaching [of the Gospel]; because the LOrd preached in His thirtieth year; and the apostles were twelve. And the structure's terminating in a cubit is the symbol of the advancement of the righteous to oneness and to "the unity of the faith."

Perhaps you are using a different translation?

mata leao · 01-01-2006, 07:47 PM

i read it as VI, but as an aside, who do you think "the Lord" is they are referring to? would it be the same Lord that Mary and Martha called Lord? Peter? and is the fish symbol irrelevant? how about the anchor symbol early christians used? to listen to folks here, you get the idea that athesits think there were nO early Christians!

Djugashvillain · 01-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Please stop calling us 'you atheists' and crediting us with claims we never made. And your abuse of the exclamation mark is depressing.

Toto · 01-01-2006, 08:09 PM

I see where you found that quote: New Advent, which appears to be the source for the Wikipedia entry

Quote:

Early in the third century Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.", VI, in P. G., IX, 305) speaks of the Cross as tou Kyriakou semeiou typon, i.e. signum Christi, "the symbol of the Lord" (St. Augustine, Tract. cxvii, "In Joan."; De Rossi, "Bull. d'arch. crist", 1863, 35, and "De titulis christianis Carthaginiensibus" in Pitra, "Spicilegium Solesmense", IV, 503).

But it is not apparent from the actual text. What is going on here?

The only other reference to the "symbol of the Lord" in Clement of Alexandria's writings is from book 1 where he says "The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the symbol of the Lord's passion and teaching."

Another article on NewAdvent says:

Quote:

In the earlier period no representations of the Crucifixion are found, and hardly any of the cross, at least in a large and conspicuous form; neither are the episodes of Christ's life commonly depicted realistically and historically, but only conventionally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

as an aside, who do you think "the Lord" is they are referring to? would it be the same Lord that Mary and Martha called Lord? Peter?

Lord in Greek = Kyrios. A common term that tells us nothing.

Quote:

and is the fish symbol irrelevant? how about the anchor symbol early christians used? to listen to folks here, you get the idea that athesits think there were nO early Christians!

The fish and the anchor symbol do nothing to show that the founder of Christianity was crucified, which is what you started out to show.

mata leao · 01-01-2006, 08:28 PM

the ancient anchor symbol is in fact a covert cross, it is made that way to fool the inquisitors, first the jewish inquisitors, then the Roman. And if Jesus was not crucified then how was he pierced such that his blood flowed? or are we now revisionistically denying Christ as a blood sacrifice too? and you are wrong, I am quoting from the actual text, I have no idea where you got the above cite form, I do not ever use Wikepedia, ever. besides, you yourself earlier said that the use of the cross as a symbol for Jesus' crucifixion began at the time of Clement...are you now backtracking?
Messianic jews in Israel today use the cross, the fish and the menorah together in their worship. Many of these are orthodox jews who have converted to Christianity, i wonder how it is that the cross can pass muster with these orthodox jewish scholars but be summarily rejected by modern atheist revisionists? The Bible does prophecy that in the latter days those that crucified him will repent and accept him.

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

01-01-2006, 05:31 PM	#151
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	Clement of Alexandria in "Strom" VI inP.C.IX 305,calls the cross "the symbol of the Lord" and refers to Christians as "devotees of the cross", with Christians of the time using the symbol of the cross in conjunction with the invocation of their faith.

01-01-2006, 05:46 PM	#153
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	well, it would be one plausible Occam's Razor- esque explanation for why tens of thousands of people were walking around drawing and later wearing a symbol which directly memorialized the Roman method of torture and execution. Not normally an object of memorialization/affection/or devotion. also, please not the video of Jesus' death and resurrection(mel gibson) was not available in stores yet so the oral tradition and use of symbols had to do! history , especially ancient history is funny that way!

01-01-2006, 06:06 PM	#155
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	You still have not explained how the same results could not be obtained given a non-historical crucified Jesus.

01-01-2006, 07:47 PM	#157
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	i read it as VI, but as an aside, who do you think "the Lord" is they are referring to? would it be the same Lord that Mary and Martha called Lord? Peter? and is the fish symbol irrelevant? how about the anchor symbol early christians used? to listen to folks here, you get the idea that athesits think there were nO early Christians!

01-01-2006, 07:55 PM	#158
Djugashvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 1,281	Please stop calling us 'you atheists' and crediting us with claims we never made. And your abuse of the exclamation mark is depressing.

01-01-2006, 08:28 PM	#160
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	the ancient anchor symbol is in fact a covert cross, it is made that way to fool the inquisitors, first the jewish inquisitors, then the Roman. And if Jesus was not crucified then how was he pierced such that his blood flowed? or are we now revisionistically denying Christ as a blood sacrifice too? and you are wrong, I am quoting from the actual text, I have no idea where you got the above cite form, I do not ever use Wikepedia, ever. besides, you yourself earlier said that the use of the cross as a symbol for Jesus' crucifixion began at the time of Clement...are you now backtracking? Messianic jews in Israel today use the cross, the fish and the menorah together in their worship. Many of these are orthodox jews who have converted to Christianity, i wonder how it is that the cross can pass muster with these orthodox jewish scholars but be summarily rejected by modern atheist revisionists? The Bible does prophecy that in the latter days those that crucified him will repent and accept him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.