Iasion

Greetings all,

Bobzammel wrote :
And when did Crucifixion technically begin?


I have collected some early references to crucifixion here :

References to crucifixion

Quentin

luvluv

Well, Iason, I do apologize for my tone. I could tone it down a bit. I realized this earlier and made up my mind to come back and apologize. There was no excuse for my belittling your position and implying that you are being intellectually dishonest. That was out of line. I hope you will accept my apology and continue with the discussion. If not, thank you for the time you have already spent relaying your knowledge on the subject. (If you do depart this discussion, perhaps you could leave me with a link to your website. It's not in your profile.)

I haven't done a word search on crucifixion yet, I will do that later to see if I can find a more literal mention.

HOWEVER, let us agree that the above citations you quote were metaphorical. How are metaphors used in common speech? Do they not generally refer back to a symbolism the meaning of which is obviously known? When the question of war comes up, and one party is called hawkish, and the other party a group of doves, there is no confusion. The metaphor can be used, because the general meaning of the symbolism is public knowledge. In the context of a discussion of war, those who seek engagement are conceived of as hawks, a supposedly warlike bird, and those who seek peace are conceived of as doves, supposedly a gentle, docile bird.

Now, what would the cross symbolize to your average Jew living in Palestine in the first century?

Certainly not the Messiah. The Jews had absolutely NO notion of a Messiah suffering the ultimate indignation which could be applied to the Roman government. It is absolutely the OPPOSITE of what the Jews expected of their Messiah, who was supposed to deliver them from Roman rule. How then, absent an actual crucifixion, did the Christian community come to concieve of the cross, the ultimate symbol of their humiliation and enslavement, as a metaphor descriptive to their salvation? This would be like African-Americans suddenly using the symbol of a hangman's noose or the confederate flag as the primary symbol of their spirituality. Again, I don't have a bible in front of me, but if I recall correctly Paul even speaks of the cross as something Jesus had to endure as an EMBARASSMENT. If you were inventing a religion, why would you use the metaphoric symbol which was, without question, the most degrading and infuriating symbol of your people's oppression IF YOU COULD AVOID IT?

Further, how could the cross be mentioned in a purely metaphorical sense WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT AT EXPLANATION? Even if the early Christian community understood that Christ lived an entirely heavenly existence, how is it possible that they would not be confused and demand an explantion for the extension, seemingly, of Roman authority all the way into the heavens? Why would God CRUCIFY Jesus? Why would he not slaughter Jesus in a purely Levitical fashion?

This seemingly piles metaphor on top of metaphor. It would seem to be much more efficient simply to say that the heavenly being Ieuos Christos was actually slaughtered on an actual altar up in heaven. Why relate the death of a heavenly being, the JEWISH messiah, to a symbol of Roman persecution and enslavement, if you didn't have to? I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and for the obviously large amount of study and consideration you have put into the issue. But sir, this makes absolutely no sense. I think the mention of the cross is an insurmountable problem to your position.

So, Iason, if my bad form has not run you off, I would like to hear your explanation (or Doherty's, if he addressed it) of just how the cross came to be a common metaphor for the early (mostly Jewish) Christian community? And how it came to be such an intergral and intuitive metaphor that Paul could mention it in his epistles WITHOUT NEED OF AN EXPLANATION?

luvluv

Gregg:

Who are Freke and Gandy? Expound upon this please.

Well, what you would need to show is that the picture you are referring to predates the emergence of Christianity. I think belief in Dionysus predates CRUCIFIXION by a couple hundred years. If this picture is dated after the advent of Christianity, it won't help your case.

You mentioned this before. Why shouldn't I assume that here Paul is making a reference to Psalms 8:4 (IIRC) which is a clear reference to HUMANITY?

Clarice O'C

Hi Bob,

The BCE date from this site:
http://www.messagenet.com/myths/neomyth.html

"Greek Myths are all that's left of the ancient Greek religion. About 1200 b.c.e., the residents of, what we would call, Greece and Asia Minor shared a common belief in a group of deities that came to be known as The Olympians."

<snip>

"The ancient texts we call Greek Myths are mostly from the period known as Classical Greece, circa 500 b.c.e. The stories behind the myths are from a much earlier time but written versions don't exist before Classical times."

On the artifact, it is an amulet/talisman. Freke & Gandy have a photo of the original talisman in the color plates section of their book. It was gray and it's about 1 1/2" wide and 2 1/2" long. The photo is of a "plaster cast of a third-century CE ring-seal amulet," plate 6.

This plaster cast was housed in the Museum of Berlin but was lost during WWII. F & G say that it looks like Christ crucified but is actually a depiction of the passion of the Pagan godman Osiris-Dionysus. They explain further on p. 13 that the Greek words on the bottom part of the amulet name Orpheus Bacchus which was one of the pseudonyms of Osiris-Dionysus. For F & G the amulet was confirmation of their Jesus Mysteries thesis that the "'original Jesus' was a Pagan god."

F & G write:

"The inscription under this figure reads 'Orpheus-Bakkikos,' which means 'Orpheus becomes a Bacchoi.' Orpheus was a great legendary prophet of Dionysus who was so respected that he was often regarded as the godman himself. A Bacchoi was an enlightened disciple of Dionysus who had become completely identified with the god. The talisman, therefore, represents Dionysus dying by crucifixion, symbolizing the initiate's mystical death to his lower nature and rebirth as a god," p. 52.

"Dionysus was also known as Bacchus, hence the title of Euripides' play 'The Bacchae, in which Dionysis is the central character. In this play, Dionysus explains that he has veiled his 'Godhead in a mortal shape' in order to make it 'manifest to mortal men.' [footnote: Euripides, op. cit. 191, line 5]. He tells his disciples, "That is why I have changed my immortal form and taken the likeness of man" [footnote: Ibid., 192, line 22]," pp. 28-29.

One of the things that F & G are saying is that the Pagan godmen were around BCE and the Jesus story is similar to those earlier godmen.

This is a picture of the amulet on the cover of Freke and Gandy's book:
http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/home.html

Best regards,
Clarice

Iasion

Gretings luvluv,

Accepted
It's easy to get overly sharp online - its ok.
Perhaps I could point out here its "Iasion" not "Iason" (Iasion is a minor figure of Greek myth who may have contributed some of the Jesus story). My page is here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/


Paul's many obviously metaphorical usages make it clear he is talking spiritually.

And Paul DOES explain his views at great length - much of his writing can be seen as an explanation of his views of Christ.


Consider this passage where he explicitly lays out the mystery which was hidden up to now :

Paul clearly explains that the mystery is :
"Christ in you, the hope of Glory"

This message is brought by Paul, and it is ABOUT Iesous Christos, who is "in" all of us - clearly a spiritual Jesus.


But it is only YOU who equates crucifixion with ONLY earthly Roman authority - Paul makes no such equation, he does not attribute the crucifixion to the Romans, but to the powers of the realm above ours.

Crucifixion is a method of death that has certain characterictics that make it suited for this allegory - to be limited, to suffer, to be pinned to the "cross" (the body, or the physical plane).


God didn't - the demons above did.



So?
It would be more efficient for Paul to have said that Jesus was actually crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem after a trial.

But he does NOT say anything concrete or specific like that, does he?


But only because you seem to have a fixed belief - you have not been able to come up with anything to prove your opinion.

Paul makes NO clear reference to a physical cross on which a literal crucifixion took place.

And notably,
NOT ONE single other Christian writing of the first century ever even uses the word "cross" - not Hebrews, James, Jude, 1 John, 1 Peter, Clement, Didakhe.

If you claim the cross was such an important symbol of early Christians - how do you explain that NOT ONE other Christian of the first century even USES the WORD "cross" ? (apart from Paul's eliptical comments).


It didn't.

Furthermore - consider the Jewish background :

The Jews considered it blasphemy to even SAY the Name of God - to call a human being God or Son of God would have been the vilest blasphemy to the Jews - yet no mention of this taboo is found, no mention of Paul arguing against this taboo.

The Jews also had a strong blood taboo - yet there is no argument about the blood of the new covenant - no Jewish resistance to a cannabilism ritual - no sign that Paul ever mentioned a real cup with real blood.


Lastly,
the issue of the cross and its importance as a Christian symbol : you may be surprised to learn that the cross was not the symbol for Christ until the 8th century IIRC - early Christians did NOT use the cross as their main symbol at all - that came much later after centuries of religious debate (and burning at the stake those who disagreed).


Quentin

Peter Kirby

Hebrews does make use of the word "cross" here:

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God. Consider how he endured such opposition from sinners, in order that you may not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood." (Heb 12:1-4, NAB)

Ephesians, often regarded as a late first century document, also refers to the cross: "...and might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile?] with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it. He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father." (Eph 2:16-18)

The Epistle of Barnabas is another document that may date to the first century--it mentions the word "cross" ten times.

Revelation, typically dated c. 95, doesn't use the word cross but does say that "their Lord was crucified," apparently referring to Jews and their great city of Jerusalem (Rev 11:8).

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings Peter,

Thanks for your reply

Whoops.


Yes you're right -
not by Paul, so it counts as another author.


Well, Barnabas may be 1st century - and it does seem to be the earliest document that mentions the crucifixion and the cross (after Paul).

Yet its a strange document, heavy on symbology, light on specifics - no Pilate, no trial, no Jerusalem.



Indeed yes,
but rather odd that no mention of the cross is made in a fairly lengthy work.


That still leaves a 1/2 dozen early Christian works from the 1st century that don't even use the word "cross" - suggesting the cross was not a big thing to early Christians.


Quentin

luvluv

He explains his overall theology and the signifigance of the death of Christ, but he never explains the symbolism of the cross.

This is all part of orthodox Christian theology. We all believe that Jesus is spiritual NOW, after his crucifixion. This does not establish that Jesus was not a physical being before the ressurection. It is and was common parlance to talk of accepting Christ and allowing him to live in you. I say this all the time myself, but I believe Christ had a physical, human incarnation. This falls prey to what undoes most of your arguments, you end up having to read into Paul's writing a much more literal interpretation than he was intending. Part of the reason that much of this sounds so baseless to me is that I live in a Christian community where we talk like this (Jesus is in you) all the time, and at no time do we mean that Jesus is ONLY a spiritual being.

My point is that Paul wouldn't need to! No one living in Palestine at that time would need a refresher course on the purposes of the cross! It would have the symbol of Roman authority on it unless some other meaning was given to them for it. Go to a professor of history or religion and ask him what he thinks the cross stands for. The first two things out of his mouth will be Christianity and the Roman empire.

The only way this could go on unexplained is if his audiences already understood the metaphor of the cross. There is only one source for the metaphor that makes sense: the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Unless you can think of another...

Again, this reinforces my point. If Christ is the sacrifice for our sins, in much the same way that lambs were the sacrifice for the sins of the ancient Hebrews, wouldn't it make more SENSE for God to offer Jesus up Himself? And again, the passage you linked from Doherty admits that a conception of earthly powers is totally legitimate.

NOT IF EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW THAT!

You have scenario 1, in which everyone knows the basics about Christ's earthly life and death on a cross, and His ressurection. Paul writes them a letter on purely theological matters, and Paul presents them with the metaphor of the cross to symbolize redemptive suffering as has already been exemplified in Christ's death.

In scenario 2, no one knows anything about Christ except that he lived and died and was reborn in some heavenly platonic realm. Paul writes the Hebrews a letter containing a reference to Jesus dying on a cross. The only previous experience the Hebrews have with the cross is that of Roman occupation and terrorism, but somehow Paul makes no attempt to explain the (potentially offensive) symbolism to them.

Which is more likely to you?

It's not surprising given the nature of the letters you are citing! Jude, 1 John, and 1 Peter were all very, very short epistles written to personal acquaintances, generally about pressing business. It is hardly surprising that the word cross was never used when the subject never came up! You are simply reading more into these texts than you have any earthly right to. It is hard to hold your position without an active imagination to fill in the blanks.

It did. I'm not talking about jewlery or coats of arms or paintings. I am talking about Christian concepts like the crucifixion of the flesh. These have been around for as long as Paul.

I don't understand your point. Under both our views, the concept of Jesus as being part of the Godhead is part and parcel with being a Christian, and so would require very little explanation. (However, almost all of Romans and Hebrews is written in an attempt to explain Jesus sacrifice to the world.) But under your view, a cross is a totally alien concept to Christianity. There is no natural place for it to enter into the picture.

The Jews had been slaughtering lambs and spilling the blood on their altars for centuries. Again this, unlike a startling and, in your view, inexplicable mention of crucifixion, would not have required much of an explanation. Particularly for a Jew.

Again, I'm not talking about necklaces or T-shirts, I'm talking about spiritual concepts... like Paul's reference to being "crucified with Christ", and the Christian notion of "crucifixion of the flesh". Concepts like these are totally inexplicable according to your view.

luvluv

Here's a little more about the symbolism of crucifixion in ancient Rome, compiled over at Tektonics Apologetics:



You'll find the rest of this article here:

http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

Greg2003

This quote demonstrates exactly what is wrong with this kind of apologetic. The author here, rather than seeking more facts to explain the unlikely outcome of people believing in a crucified deity, concludes that a faith statement must be true. Note, he does not conclude that HJ existed because the crucifixion story can't be explained any other way. Rather, he concludes that christianity must be true (from the cross came victory - a faith statement), and by impication HJ must be true, because so many people chose to believe it despite its absurdity. But you could just as easily say that HJ must be true because so many people are credulous.

BTW, christianity did not become gnostic. Gnosticism produced christianity. Paul's own writing clearly reflects gnostic ideas about the nature and purpose of christ's redemptive sacrifice and our subsequent putting off of the old man and walking in the spirit. Prior to the rise of christianity, gnosticism had the idea of a redeemer coming down from the highest realm to the realms of the archons to become like man, suffer like man, and die, putting off the old man and redeeming the spirit, then rising to the highest realm to be an intecessor between man and god.

Additionally, gnosticism had the idea that the redeemer would leave particles of light (insight into true knowledge, or parts of himself) among mankind. The redeemer would then have to return to gather these particles of light together and return to heaven with them, at the end of time. This is probably the origin of the christian rapture. Taking on the idea of crucifixion to the suffering of the redeemer is not unlikely, since humiliation and disgrace is exactly what the redeemer is supposed to go through.

Apologetics that ignore the theological and philosophical miliue at the time of the birth of christianity cannot explain the emergence of the faith in human terms, because such apologetics are ignoring what the humans where talking about at that time. If we imagine no shared intellectual culture between christians and the rest of the world around them, then, of course, the only explanation for the emergence of the religion is by faith statments such as Tektonics makes. Christ must be a real transforming powerful god, because, there's no other explanation for why people would think of such an absurd god. But a non-faith based, commonsense, critical thinking approach tells us otherwise.