1. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jun '10 19:51
    http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

    Kind of something the Witnesses have been saying all along....
  2. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    27 Jun '10 21:551 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

    Kind of something the Witnesses have been saying all along....
    Firstly, it doesn't really matter whether Jesus died on a crucifix or a pole. There is no dogma that Jesus died on a cross and the detail is quite subsidiary. Secondly, the claim of this scholar is quite weaker than the JWs. He only says that there is not enough evidence to believe Jesus was crucified; the JW's actually say that he wasn't at all. It would be a mistake to regard this scholar as necessarily an ally.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    27 Jun '10 22:513 edits
    Originally posted by galveston75
    http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

    Kind of something the Witnesses have been saying all along....
    everyone knows its a pagan symbol, my goodness Alexander Hislop exposed it way back in the 1800s. Of course the idea that it does not matter is simply a nonsense considering that we are to worship the father in 'spirit and truth' and christians are to remain spiritually pure or undefiled. Now ask yourself the question Galvo, can you venerate a pagan symbol and yet remain spiritually undefiled from Gods standpoint? Is it not an adulteration?
  4. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    27 Jun '10 22:56
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    everyone knows its a pagan symbol, my goodness Alexander Hyslop exposed it way back in the 1800s. Of course the idea that it does not matter is simply a nonsense considering that we are to worship the father in 'spirit and truth' and christians are to remain spiritually pure or undefiled. Now ask yourself the question Galvo, can you venerate a paga ...[text shortened]... symbol and yet remain spiritually undefiled from Gods standpoint? Is it not an adulteration?
    Yep it is.....We are to worship GOD only. Nothing else in ALL of creation. Pretty simple it would seem.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 Jun '10 23:261 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    everyone knows its a pagan symbol, my goodness Alexander Hislop exposed it way back in the 1800s. Of course the idea that it does not matter is simply a nonsense considering that we are to worship the father in 'spirit and truth' and christians are to remain spiritually pure or undefiled. Now ask yourself the question Galvo, can you venerate a paga ...[text shortened]... symbol and yet remain spiritually undefiled from Gods standpoint? Is it not an adulteration?
    Hislop, I do not believe, said that Jesus did not die on a cross.

    Hislop, I believe, just said that the cross was a symbol used by religions previously. We can see that in Egyptians hieroglyphics.

    If I am incorrect please refer me to the pages in his book that discuss the cross.
    I don't mind double checking.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 Jun '10 23:301 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Yep it is.....We are to worship GOD only. Nothing else in ALL of creation. Pretty simple it would seem.
    Yea, the chief priests and pharisees thought it was pretty simple enough too, simple enough lead them to crucify the Son of God.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    27 Jun '10 23:332 edits
    Every few years some Phd. writes a popular book claiming to be the newest inside story on the historical Jesus.

    The Passover Plot,
    The Divinci Code,
    The Mistakes of Jesus,
    etc. etc.

    Here's the newest guy looking to propose a theory to sell a bunch of books for him to the gullible. Jesus didn't die on a cross !

    Now's the time to "Question Authority".
  8. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    27 Jun '10 23:52
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Hislop, I do not believe, said that Jesus did not die on a cross.

    Hislop, I believe, just said that the cross was a symbol used by religions previously. We can see that in Egyptians hieroglyphics.

    If I am incorrect please refer me to the pages in his book that discuss the cross.
    I don't mind double checking.
    Hislop, I believe, just said that the cross was a symbol used by religions previously. We can see that in Egyptians hieroglyphics.

    Yes, and I believe that is an important point. Many practices in the Bible have pagan precedents. For example, the practice of baptism, which is enjoined by Jesus and performed by the apostles, can be found in Judaism as well as in a number of mystery religions in the classical period. However, simply because something may have been previously used in pagan worship does not mean that it is still pagan. It is simply bizarre to describe the cross as a pagan symbol when no Christian actually intends anything pagan by it nor in fact may even be aware of its prior pagan history.

    A Christian would simply argue that while there may have been a pagan precedent for baptism, or the cross, or a number of other symbols, these simply take on new meaning in Christianity. The cross, used for pagan worship, as well as an instrument of torture and execution, becomes a sign of Christ's sacrifice, the Christian hope in the resurrection and the cost of discipleship. Whatever pagan antecedents the crucifix may have, it has been thoroughly purged of any pagan connotations.
  9. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    27 Jun '10 23:56
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    everyone knows its a pagan symbol, my goodness Alexander Hislop exposed it way back in the 1800s. Of course the idea that it does not matter is simply a nonsense considering that we are to worship the father in 'spirit and truth' and christians are to remain spiritually pure or undefiled. Now ask yourself the question Galvo, can you venerate a paga ...[text shortened]... symbol and yet remain spiritually undefiled from Gods standpoint? Is it not an adulteration?
    Now ask yourself the question Galvo, can you venerate a pagan symbol and yet remain spiritually undefiled from Gods standpoint? Is it not an adulteration?

    I'm quite sure your considerations have nothing to do with whether or not it can reasonably be considered an adulteration. Whether or not one's actions can be reasonably viewed as adulteration cannot really be divorced from consideration of their underlying motivations. Alas, what you have tried to do here is exactly that: you have presumed to divorce the two by saying that the question of adulteration can rest in this case merely in the cross's satisfying some external relationship (wholly independent of what one's motivations are for otherwise venerating that cross or taking it as meaningfully symbolic).

    If you were to say that Jesus did not die on a cross, but rather died on some other implement; then you are prepared to state that your venerations of his death have amounted to adulteration if you were to happen across evidence that this other implement too once held some nameless pagan significance?
  10. tinyurl.com/ywohm
    Joined
    01 May '07
    Moves
    27860
    28 Jun '10 00:02
    So what is the original word in the Bible that's translated into English as crucify? That would be a clue, since "crucify" implies a cross, as opposed to other methods. A friend's son once suggested that if Jesus had died in the electric chair, Christians would be wearing little chair necklaces.

    The Franciscans wear a Tau, which is basically a cross without the top part (thus a T). I believe the origin was that this is what they believed Jesus was killed on, a capital T rather than a lower case t.
  11. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    28 Jun '10 00:111 edit
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    So what is the original word in the Bible that's translated into English as crucify? That would be a clue, since "crucify" implies a cross, as opposed to other methods. A friend's son once suggested that if Jesus had died in the electric chair, Christians would be wearing little chair necklaces.

    The Franciscans wear a Tau, which is basically a cross ...[text shortened]... that this is what they believed Jesus was killed on, a capital T rather than a lower case t.
    The Greek noun is 'stauros' (which may mean a pole or a cross) while the verb is 'anastaurein' (which may mean to impale as well as to crucify). The Latin Vulgate offers no solution because the noun 'crux' can mean both, as well as the verb 'crucificere'.

    Yes, the Franciscans wear the tau. I am not sure the reason for this. The tau is the oldest representation of the cross.

    As for the cross, I suspect that the origin is thoroughly biblical. Psalm 21:17 suggests that the hands and feet of the Messiah will be pierced. The crucifix better visualises this than a pike. Perhaps actually it originated from Ezekiel 9:4 which instructs the people to be marked with a "Thau' (a Hebrew letter.) I don't buy the idea though that it was a deliberate appropriation from pagan worship (were early Christians even familiar with Egyptian hieroglyphs?)
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    28 Jun '10 00:355 edits
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    [b]Now ask yourself the question Galvo, can you venerate a pagan symbol and yet remain spiritually undefiled from Gods standpoint? Is it not an adulteration?

    I'm quite sure your considerations have nothing to do with whether or not it can reasonably be considered an adulteration. Whether or not one's actions can be reasonably viewed as adulterati en across evidence that this other implement too once held some nameless pagan significance?[/b]
    I'm quite sure your considerations have nothing to do with whether or not it can reasonably be considered an adulteration - lemony yellow

    i see you are now able to discern the intentions and motivations of the heart, do you also read minds with a mind ray from a laboratory somewhere in the hills? whether you are sure or otherwise is neither here nor there, for by your comments, it is perfectly obvious that you know not what you are saying, because if you did, you would understand that the concept of holiness, is one of sanctification and cleanliness, in other words , freedom from spiritual adulteration and as Glavo has pointed out, anything which is venerated above God is either idolatrous or if it is from a source other than that which has been sanctified in relation to the revealed word of god and is utilised in worship and/or as an object of veneration, it becomes spiritually adulterous making your last point, well, rather pointless.

    i would also be pleased if you would express your concerns with greater clarity, reading your posts is like reading Bbar pretentious verbosity, in order to get to the actual points, one needs to get a pair of waders and wade through superfluous use of language. It also helps to dispel ambiguity.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    28 Jun '10 00:402 edits
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Hislop, I do not believe, said that Jesus did not die on a cross.

    Hislop, I believe, just said that the cross was a symbol used by religions previously. We can see that in Egyptians hieroglyphics.

    If I am incorrect please refer me to the pages in his book that discuss the cross.
    I don't mind double checking.
    i shall get my book back from my friends house tomorrow, in the meantime, i shall search the internet and try to find the relevant text. There are indeed two threads here, whether Christ was put to death on a cross or a simple stake, whether the cross is an adopted pagan symbol.

    you shall be pleased to look at chapter 5 section 6 of The two Babylons, pages 132 - 136 under the section, The sign of the cross, with which Hislop details its pagan use and adoption and veneration as a so called 'Christian', symbol'.

    He does not state that Christ was not put to death on a 'cross', merely that the cross and its veneration are pagan.
  14. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    28 Jun '10 01:30
    One can justify the use or possesion or whatever reason one came come up with to make, buy, create, bow down to, hold some religious importance on, venerate, or whatever.
    But this is mans decision to do this and has never been approved in one scripture in the Bible, by God, Jesus, the apostles, the early Christians or the ones of old that followed Gods laws such as : DO NOT MAKE A GRAVEN IMAGE!!!!! Other scriptures CLEARLY state to not have a graven image in YOUR possesion.
    So to say it really doesn't matter is a foolish and unwise man made thought.
    If it was something that we were supposed to have, make or use in anyway in a religious sense, then why didn't Jesus do that or tell anyone at all to use them?
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    28 Jun '10 04:34
    Conclusion is that we don't know if Jesus was crucified or not...
Back to Top