Paganism

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
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

i stand corrected then.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 s ...[text shortened]... of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross.

Let me point out three things:

1. Crux can mean both a cross or a stake. The Latin translation 'crux', rather than, say 'contus', was not an error. Crux and stauros have the same meaning and share the same ambiguity.

2. While stauros can mean an upright pole, and while this was the original meaning, stauros really can mean a cross as well. Liddle and Scott explicitly say that this is the meaning in the NT:

I. an upright pale or stake, Hom., etc.: of piles driven in to serve as a foundation, Hdt., Thuc.
II. the Cross, NTest.: its form was represented by the Greek letter Τ, Luc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=stauro%2Fs&la=greek#lexico

As Liddle and Scott point out, the letter 'tau' was the traditional sign of the stauros; it was definitely a cross.

3. Catholics are not committed to any doctrine that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The cross obviously has a significant symbolic meaning to Catholics but if historical evidence proved that Jesus was hung on a pole, it would require no dogmatic change.

what is it about the bible not being written in Latin that yet evades you? it is intellectually dishonest, yes, to borrow one of your own phrases, intellectually dishonest to translate sturos as cross.

W.E Vine expository of New testament words

Sturos
denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, "to fasten to a stake or pale," are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed "cross." The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is it about the bible not being written in Latin that yet evades you? it is intellectually dishonest, yes, to borrow one of your own phrases, intellectually dishonest to translate sturos as cross.

W.E Vine expository of New testament words

Sturos
[b]denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execu uent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ.

what is it about the bible not being written in Latin that yet evades you? it is intellectually dishonest, yes, to borrow one of your own phrases, intellectually dishonest to translate sturos as cross.[/b]

No. Robbie. It is not intellectually dishonest. These two words mean the same thing. Crux denotes both a cross and an upright stake, as does stauros. (If you had sufficient intellectual capacity to understand such a simple premise, you might notice that my point actually lends support to your argument that Jesus was hung on a stake.)

I would like to know on what grounds W.E Vine made this conclusion. Mind you, Liddell and Scott are much more authoritative. If the LSJ says that stauros can mean cross, then I will accept that.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]what is it about the bible not being written in Latin that yet evades you? it is intellectually dishonest, yes, to borrow one of your own phrases, intellectually dishonest to translate sturos as cross.[/b]

No. Robbie. It is not intellectually dishonest. These two words mean the same thing. Crux denotes both a cross and an upright stake, as does s ...[text shortened]... e much more authoritative. If the LSJ says that stauros can mean cross, then I will accept that.[/b]

if you had sufficient intellectual capacity to discern Vines words, you would understand why he makes the distinction, for God knows he states it plainly enough. Intellectual snobbery is neither Christian, gentlemanly nor becoming. I suggest you give up the practice for it does you no good whatsoever.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you had sufficient intellectual capacity to discern Vines words, you would understand why he makes the distinction, for God knows he states it plainly enough. Intellectual snobbery is neither Christian, gentlemanly nor becoming. I suggest you give up the practice for it does you no good whatsoever.

I seriously doubt Vine's historical accuracy here. Obviously as a Catholic I have certain reservations when he says that the early church departed from, even travestied, Christian doctrines. Again, as Liddel and Scott explicitly say, stauros can mean cross. I accept their definition as authoritative.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I seriously doubt Vine's historical accuracy here. Obviously as a Catholic I have certain reservations when he says that the early church departed from, even travestied, Christian doctrines. Again, as Liddel and Scott explicitly say, stauros can mean cross. I accept their definition as authoritative.

yet you have no problem in stating elsewhere that the church was quite happy to absorb pagan elements, yet when Vine points it out with respect to the nature of the Greek word sturos and the idea of a cross you take aversion, how vewy vewy intwesting Mr. Bond. Vine is a respected Biblical scholar, the reason that you do not acknowledge his authority is what?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yet you have no problem in stating elsewhere that the church was quite happy to absorb pagan elements, yet when Vine points it out with respect to the nature of the Greek word sturos and the idea of a cross you take aversion, how vewy vewy intwesting Mr. Bond. Vine is a respected Biblical scholar, the reason that you do not acknowledge his authority is what?

Again, Liddel and Scott indicate that stauros means cross. This is the meaning they give to it in the New Testament. Whatever authority Vine may have (although, I suspect his work is largely superseded by modern scholarship), Liddel and Scott is more credible. Their lexicon continues to be the most comprehensive work on Ancient Greek (I spend many hours using it for my translations.)

Can I also point out, the word is stauros, not sturos.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, Liddel and Scott indicate that stauros means cross. This is the meaning they give to it in the New Testament. Whatever authority Vine may have (although, I suspect his work is largely superseded by modern scholarship), Liddel and Scott is more credible. Their lexicon continues to be the most comprehensive work on Ancient Greek (I spend many hours using it for my translations.)

Can I also point out, the word is stauros, not sturos.

your post is devoid of reason, which is not surprising since it is quite consistent with your, what shall we say, tendency to gravitate towards that view which suits the position of your church. When you can think of any reasons, let the forum know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your post is devoid of reason, which is not surprising since it is quite consistent with your, what shall we say, tendency to gravitate towards that view which suits the position of your church. When you can think of any reasons, let the forum know.

Exactly what do you dispute in my post? What arguments do you find so weak? That stauros means cross is what Liddel and Scott says. That is a very powerful reason.

And as I have pointed out, whether Christ's stauros had a crossbeam is not a dogma. Some crosses in fact have three horizontal beams. Whether all these beams are historically valid is not of concern. So I do not particularly care whether Jesus was killed on a cross or on a stake. My point is, however, that stauros can mean cross and, in fact, this is how it is traditionally understood by the time of the NT.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Exactly what do you dispute in my post? What arguments do you find so weak? That stauros means cross is what Liddel and Scott says. That is a very powerful reason.

And as I have pointed out, whether Christ's stauros had a crossbeam is not a dogma. Some crosses in fact have three horizontal beams. Whether all these beams are historically valid is not of ...[text shortened]... can mean cross and, in fact, this is how it is traditionally understood by the time of the NT.

Liddel and Scot may claim whatever they want, however the Ancient Greeks were using the word “stauros” in order to describe solely either a pole or a long piece of wood.

Homer states: “amfi the oi megalin aulin poiisan anakti stauroisin pyknisi” (and all around they built a kind of a large hall for the king by means of many poles arranged in very close distance from each other), and also “staurous ektos elasse diamperes entha kai entha pyknous kai thameas” (at all the length of the perimeter he nailed deep in the ground poles, each one very close to the other). And definitely the same definition is used by Herodotus, Thoucydides etc, so methinks it is needless to comment further regarding this matter -however I can give you further details should you need further pieces of info.

Now I just point out that the Ancient Greeks should have a different word in order to describe the Christian cross, a specific word that is missing. This missing word could be probably “tetraktys”
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Liddel and Scot may claim whatever they want, however the Ancient Greeks were using the word “stauros” in order to describe solely either a pole or a long piece of wood.

Homer states: “amfi the oi megalin aulin poiisan anakti stauroisin pyknisi” (and all around they built a kind of a large hall for the king by means of many poles arranged in very clo ...[text shortened]... tian cross, a specific word that is missing. This missing word could be probably “tetraktys”
😵

peace be upon you beetle for a thousand thousand generations, i knew them ancient Greeks, the very cradle of civilisation itself could be relied upon to give a result 🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
Liddel and Scot may claim whatever they want, however the Ancient Greeks were using the word “stauros” in order to describe solely either a pole or a long piece of wood.

Homer states: “amfi the oi megalin aulin poiisan anakti stauroisin pyknisi” (and all around they built a kind of a large hall for the king by means of many poles arranged in very clo ...[text shortened]... tian cross, a specific word that is missing. This missing word could be probably “tetraktys”
😵

Liddel and Scot may claim whatever they want, however the Ancient Greeks were using the word “stauros” in order to describe solely either a pole or a long piece of wood.

I am well aware of that. However, and surely you of all people on this forum should appreciate this, the New Testament was a work of Koine Greek. Whatever stauros meant in Homeric Greek does not bear on this discussion. Meanings inevitably change over several decades (in fact, I can hardly understand even the grammar of the sentence you quote.) I am absolutely flabbergasted that you have pursued this line of argument.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Liddel and Scot may claim whatever they want, however the Ancient Greeks were using the word “stauros” in order to describe solely either a pole or a long piece of wood.

I am well aware of that. However, and surely you of all people on this forum should appreciate this, the New Testament was a work of Koine Greek. Whatever stauros meant in ...[text shortened]... sentence you quote.) I am absolutely flabbergasted that you have pursued this line of argument.[/b]

i can imagine the vacuum created in your abode as you gasped for air, open a widow, breathe in the air and let the light shine 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i can imagine the vacuum created in your abode as you gasped for air, open a widow, breathe in the air and let the light shine 🙂

I have no idea what your point is. The fact is that stauros can mean cross. I acknowledge that it can also mean a pole; I acknowledge that this was its original, classical meaning (and I have acknowledged that twice before.) But there are many places in which it clearly has this meaning. Liddell and Scot indicate several writers who use it in this sense: Diodorus Siculus, Plutrarch and Lucian. Unfortunately the Perseus Project does not contain their works. Later I will locate some and show you that stauros can mean cross.