Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_about_the_shape_of_the_gibbet_of_Jesus
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.
Originally posted by ZahlanziCrucifiction was part of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culture long before Jesus.
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungbut the crucifixion of jesus, the son of god as an example of sacrifice was not part of "Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culture long before Jesus".
Crucifiction was part of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culture long before Jesus.
i understand you like to portray christians as sadistic monsters and the inquisition or the crusades doesn't do much to disprove that portrayal but we don't have a connection with the act of crucifixion in itself. the christian cross doesn't represent how brutally some people disposed of their criminals then.
the christian cross represents how the son of god died for our sins. and i have the impression that didn't happen in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culture long before Jesus. not often anyway
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei am sorry, so jc's don't believe jesus was "crucified" on a pole? i am sorry, i may be confused as to having seen a very graphic pole jesus in a watchtower magazine. mah bad
what 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 do ...[text shortened]... re made, except the usual ill conceived prejudice that you have picked up from God knows where.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, of course. I think what Zahlanzi finds irksome is the idea that Christians were covert pagans. The cross may have had pagan origins. It obviously was a Roman instrument of torture and execution. Christians would argue, however, that from Christ's death, the cross has a radically new and exclusively Christian meaning -- that Christ died for sins, that Christ conquered death and was resurrected and that Christians, by carrying their cross, share in the rewards of his sacrifice.
It's not a question of plagiarising, just adapting a handy symbol.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe evidence is very strong that Christ died on a cross. While both the Greek 'stauros' and the Latin 'crux' can mean either a pole or a cross, the latter is the better translation. The fact that the cross appears so early among Christians indicates this. There are also many cases in which 'stauros' does mean a cross. For example, the ho topos tou staurou (the sign of the cross) was an appeal to clemency (a person would stretch out both hands to make the sign of the cross.)
what 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 do ...[text shortened]... re made, except the usual ill conceived prejudice that you have picked up from God knows where.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI recommend you take a look here:
but the crucifixion of jesus, the son of god as an example of sacrifice was not part of "Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culture long before Jesus".
i understand you like to portray christians as sadistic monsters and the inquisition or the crusades doesn't do much to disprove that portrayal but we don't have a connection with the act of crucifixion in 't happen in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern culture long before Jesus. not often anyway
Mr. Taylor informs us that some of the early disciples of the Christian faith demolished accessible monuments representing and memorializing the crucifixion of the ancient oriental sin-atoning Gods, so that they are now unknown in the annals of Christian history. Hence, the surprise excited in the minds of Christian professors when other cases are mentioned.
Such influences as referred to above have shut out from the minds of the disciples of several religious systems a knowledge of all crucified Gods but their own. Hence, the Hindoo rejoices in knowing only "Chrishna and him crucified." The Persian entwines around his heart the remembrance only of the atoning sufferings on the cross of Mithra the Mediator. The Mexican daily sends up his earnest, soul-breathing prayer for the return of the spirit of his crucified Savior -- Quexalcote. While the Caucasian, with equal devotion, chants daily praises to his slain "Divine Intercessor" for voluntarily offering himself upon the cross for the sins of a fallen race. And the Christian disciple hugs to his bosom the bloody cross of the murdered Jesus, unhaunted by the suspicion that other Gods died for the sins of man long anterior to the advent of the immaculate Nazarene.
We will now lay before the reader a brief account of the crucifixion of more than a dozen virgin-born Gods and sin-atoning Saviors, predicated upon facts which have escaped the hands of the Christian iconoclasts determined to know only Jesus Christ crucified. We will first notice the case of the Indian God- Chrishna.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap16.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is unsurprising. Sacrifice is prevalent among most religions. I would question, however, whether any religion had the idea of an incarnate-god who is sacrificed to achieve universal redemption.
I recommend you take a look here:
Mr. Taylor informs us that some of the early disciples of the Christian faith demolished accessible monuments representing and memorializing the crucifixion of the ancient oriental sin-atoning Gods, so that they are now unknown in the annals of Christian history. Hence, the surprise excited in the minds of Chris ...[text shortened]... od- Chrishna.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap16.html
Can I point out that many early Christians acknowledged the pagan origins of their beliefs. Christianity did not have to represent a decisive break from all previous religious ideas, particularly those from natural theology. Christians happily read Cicero who arguably gave the most detailed exposition of the natural law theory, along with Philo who sought to adapt his theories to Judaism; Christians read Plato who gave them a precise terminology for a doctrine of the soul. From a theological perspective, Christians did not see anything problematic in this. Since Christ came 'in the fullness of time', society had to have been geared for his arrival. They believed that the pagans, although erroneous in many ways, had glimpses of Christ to come.
Originally posted by karoly aczelOh there are more than the ones I quoted. The historicity of each crucifiction is as questionable as the historicity of the crucifiction of Jesus, however all I want to point out is the ancient existence of specific approaches regarding the "cross" and "the Saviour who is crucified in order to save the world and the people from the sin".
Its an eye-oppenning post...I didin't know there were so many🙂
The crucifiction is not a Roman fruit, the Romans took it from the Phoenicians. Even the Ancient Greeks were aware of the myth of the crucifiction (check Prometheus of Aeschulus 547 BC and Alcestus of Euripides 600 BC; also, Alexander the Great crucified happily a general of his army after a dispute). Back then everybody knew that the Saviours and Sons of the Supreme God were almost always crucified at the final stage of their quest because this way of dying was considered the most painful and the highest state of suffering that can be endured by mortals😵
In reply to Conrau
no its not, crux is not a better translation, the Bible was not written in Latin in was written in Hebrew and Greek, crux as i have stated gives a FALSE impression of what was intended. The Bible does not say crux, its says sturos. It is of course no surprise that you value the traditions of your church over what is actually stated in scripture, it is a pattern that has become plainly obvious and you are now left trying to make assertions on some other basis, time and again. Also your assertion that early christians embraced others forms of paganism is also quite false, perhaps after the death of the apostles and as the great apostasy ensued, but not during nor before. These elements are off course a matter of tradition and as Christ stated, you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. There is no Biblical evidence to suggest that Christ was tortured on a cross, no not one!
The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stauros], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xylon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xylon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)
The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.
Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross.