1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzizhalanzi, the site was englishathiest.com,, absolutely nothing to do with Jehovahs witnesses, the reasoning was solid, firmly established.
a, the very nice jehova witnesses claim that jesus was "crucified" on a non-cross: a stake
edit:
The Fathers who wrote in Latin, used the word crux as a translation of the Greek word stauros. It is therefore noteworthy that even this Latin word "crux," from which we derive our words "cross" and "crucify," did not in ancient days necessarily mean some ...[text shortened]... relevant. which is laughable.
i only got to the second chapter. it was enough for me.
1. The Greek word is stauros, a simple stake
2. Its has been inaccurately translated as crux, when transposing into Latin
3. The practice more often to execute persons on a simple stake (illiad etc)
4. the reference to 'christ being hung upon a tree', is suggestive of a simple stake
5. to crucify simply means to fix to a stake
6. there is no biblical reason for presupposing that a cross beam was added, non whatsoever
and these are just off the top of my head, if you have evidence to the contrary then let it be heard.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOnly the JW's believe that.
zhalanzi, the site was englishathiest.com,, absolutely nothing to do with Jehovahs witnesses, the reasoning was solid, firmly established.
1. The Greek word is stauros, a simple stake
2. Its has been inaccurately translated as crux, when transposing into Latin
3. The practice more often to execute persons on a simple stake (illiad etc)
4. ...[text shortened]... se are just off the top of my head, if you have evidence to the contrary then let it be heard.
Everybody else knows that the Romans used a cross member fixed to an upright beam when crucifying.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of a single beam. It's only a JW notion. You've been brainwashed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh, i did not pay attention to what the site was named. i just found it funny the reasons the author started researching this issue (how childish they were) and how at least in the first chapters, he only uses "what people might have meant" whenh they said this and that.
zhalanzi, the site was englishathiest.com,, absolutely nothing to do with Jehovahs witnesses, the reasoning was solid, firmly established.
1. The Greek word is stauros, a simple stake
2. Its has been inaccurately translated as crux, when transposing into Latin
3. The practice more often to execute persons on a simple stake (illiad etc)
4. ...[text shortened]... se are just off the top of my head, if you have evidence to the contrary then let it be heard.
i found it pretentious and forced. kind of like a child that asks his parents for the 100th time "but santa can exist though, right? even if you were the ones that bought the gifts from the previous years?"
Originally posted by black beetleyou don't get how this works, dont you?
The cross of early Christianity was in use in the Mediterranean world and beyond, long before the time of Jesus. The Pagans of Northern Europe used the cross (+) since 1.800 BC as a part of their symbolic script. This exact cross was adopted by Christianity😵
christians didn't adopt the cross because "Pagans of Northern Europe used the cross (+) since 1.800 BC as a part of their symbolic script.". they adopted the cross because jesus was crucified on it. no connection to anything. but to the crucifiction. which is not a pagan, atheist, hindu or any other event. it is a christian event.
Originally posted by ZahlanziTo be frank, methinks that the Christians did not adopt from the Pagans solely the cross. For example, you know the Christian story regarding Herod; here I will offer you its ancient Hindu version:
you don't get how this works, dont you?
christians didn't adopt the cross because "Pagans of Northern Europe used the cross (+) since 1.800 BC as a part of their symbolic script.". they adopted the cross because jesus was crucified on it. no connection to anything. but to the crucifiction. which is not a pagan, atheist, hindu or any other event. it is a christian event.
An angel warned Chrishna’s parents to flee from a danger which could force them to loose a divine child that it would become the Saviour of the world, whilst this or another angel informed also the tyrant Cansa of his personal danger (for this ruler stated that he heard an angel voice announcing that a rival ruler was born in his kingdom).
At once Cansa took measures to destroy the opponent indirectly, by means of killing the newborn infants. Herod went on as mentioned in Matt. 2:8, whilst Cansa orders fervently:
-- “Let active search be made for whatever young children there may be upon earth, and let every boy in whom there may be found signs of unusual greatness be slain without remorse”.
One can still spot in the cave temple at Elephante in India a sculptured king sword in hand, surrounded with slaughtered male infants and ignoring the plea of their parents to spare their life, and this sculpture is by far older than Christianity. The rest story goes like this:
Chrishna was carried away in the night and he was concealed in a region remote from his natal place, because his parents (well informed by an angel) wanted to save him from the tyrant who knew that a new born kid would become his destroyer -and that tyrant had already ordered all the male children born at that time to be slain. So Chrishna’s parents fled with the young Hindu Savior to Gokul just like as Joseph and Mary fled with the young Judean God into Egypt. When Chrishna’s parents approached the river Jumna, the waters “parted hither and thither” and they crossed the river “dry shod”…
In the Baghavat Gita you may also read:
-- “Abandoning the mortal form, Chrishna appeared to his disciples in all the divine eclat of his Divine Majesty, his brow encircled with such a brilliant light that Adjourna and the other disciples, unable to bear it, fell with their faces in the dust, and prayed the Lord (Chrishna) to pardon their unworthiness. He replied, “Have you not faith in me? Know ye not, that whether present or absent in body, I will be ever present with you to guard and protect you?”…
Chrishna (or Chrishna Zeus or Jeseus), the Hindu God and Son of God according to the Ramazand -the Hindu New Testament-, was crucified in India in 1.200 BC, and in some drawings he is represented exactly in the form of a Romish Christian crucifix
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleoh, so in other words, no (other) sons of god may have the permission to be born and crucified after 1800 without being accused of plagiarizing?
To be frank, methinks that the Christians did not adopt from the Pagans solely the cross. For example, you know the Christian story regarding Herod; here I will offer you its ancient Hindu version:
An angel warned Chrishna’s parents to flee from a danger which could force them to loose a divine child that it would become the Saviour of the world, whi ...[text shortened]... C, and in some drawings he is represented exactly in the form of a Romish Christian crucifix
😵
at least i am glad you seemed to move on from the cross plagiarizing.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's not a question of plagiarising, just adapting a handy symbol.
oh, so in other words, no (other) sons of god may have the permission to be born and crucified after 1800 without being accused of plagiarizing?
at least i am glad you seemed to move on from the cross plagiarizing.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI merely claim, as Bosse just noted, that the Christians adopted (much more than a) handy symbol. Paul was aware of the fact that the story of the crucified Saviours worldwide and the extensive use of the cross were very popular amongst the Pagans, and this is the reason why he was preaching that the sole true crucified Saviour was Jesus
oh, so in other words, no (other) sons of god may have the permission to be born and crucified after 1800 without being accused of plagiarizing?
at least i am glad you seemed to move on from the cross plagiarizing.
😵
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow could be ever be developed indepedendently? The Pagans all around the dial back then they were worshipping various crucified Saviours -some of them were:
or it can be developed independently. not necessarily jesus was an indian literature scholar who got that story from the internet
Thulis the Egyptian, crucified in 1.700 BC
Atys of Phrygia, crucified in 1.170 BC
Crite of Chaldea, crucified in 1.200 BC
Thammuz of Syria, crucified in 1.160 BC
Hesus the Celtic Druid, crucified in 834 BC
Indra of Tibet, crucified in 725 BC
Bali of Orissa, crucified in 725 BC
Iao of Nepal, crucified in 622 BC
Mithra of Persia, , crucified in 600 BC
Hindu Sakia, crucified in 600 BC
Quexalcote of Mexico, crucified in 587 BC
Wittoba of the Telingonesic, crucified in 552 BC
Qurinus of Rome, crucified in 506 BC
etc etc etc.
This means that the symbol of the cross was very common and with already known meaning. It seems to me that due time the Christians replaced all the Saviours of the Pagans with Jesus Christ and they forced them to use the cross solely for the worshipping purposes of Jesus instead of the other Saviours😵
Originally posted by black beetle😲
How could be ever be developed indepedendently? The Pagans all around the dial back then they were worshipping various crucified Saviours -some of them were:
Thulis the Egyptian, crucified in 1.700 BC
Atys of Phrygia, crucified in 1.170 BC
Crite of Chaldea, crucified in 1.200 BC
Thammuz of Syria, crucified in 1.160 BC
Hesus the Celtic Druid, cruc ...[text shortened]... em to use the cross solely for the worshipping purposes of Jesus instead of the other Saviours😵
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwwhat is it about englishathiest.com, not having anything to do with Jehovahs witnesses that you do not understand? Is there no clue as to the wording that perhaps appeals to your imagination? Does not the term atheist mean anything to you? what is yet evading you? Me thinks that a little education in your case could go a long way. No everybody doesn't know, in fact it appears you know very little. This of course is not meant as a personal insult simply as a statement of fact, giving that you have proffered not one credible objection to the points that were made, except the usual ill conceived prejudice that you have picked up from God knows where.
Only the JW's believe that.
Everybody else knows that the Romans used a cross member fixed to an upright beam when crucifying.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea of a single beam. It's only a JW notion. You've been brainwashed.
Originally posted by Zahlanziperhaps you may fare better than Joseph, who knows?
oh, i did not pay attention to what the site was named. i just found it funny the reasons the author started researching this issue (how childish they were) and how at least in the first chapters, he only uses "what people might have meant" whenh they said this and that.
i found it pretentious and forced. kind of like a child that asks his parents for th ...[text shortened]... ist though, right? even if you were the ones that bought the gifts from the previous years?"
Originally posted by ZahlanziFor it to have been developed independently, the developer would have had to exist in a vacuum; Indian and Egyptian ideas (Krishna, Osiris) were known to the Greeks centuries before Christ, even influencing the philosophy of Pythagoras.
or it can be developed independently. not necessarily jesus was an indian literature scholar who got that story from the internet
Your 'innovator' would have been like Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote ...