Paganism

Originally posted by Conrau K
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: Di ...[text shortened]... does not contain their works. Later I will locate some and show you that stauros can mean cross.

dont tell me, tell beetle, hes loading the cannons as we speak, although he prefers to throw cannon balls gently, under arm rather than blast them with gunpowder. I'd prepare defences if i were you. The fact that there is no Biblical precept for accepting that Christ died on a cross is enough for me, this, and the fact that it is essentially a pagan symbol, is in itself, quite telling.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dont tell me, tell beetle, hes loading the cannons as we speak, although he prefers to throw cannon balls gently, under arm rather than blast them with gunpowder. I'd prepare defences if i were you. The fact that there is no Biblical precept for accepting that Christ died on a cross is enough for me, this, and the fact that it is essentially a pagan symbol, is in itself, quite telling.

The fact that there is no Biblical precept for accepting that Christ died on a cross is enough for me, this, and the fact that it is essentially a pagan symbol, is in itself, quite telling.

Again, I am not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that stauros cannot mean cross, despite what Liddell and Scott indicate? Or do you acknowledge that it can mean a cross but that in the case of the NT, it does not? What exactly is your evidence for this?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The fact that there is no Biblical precept for accepting that Christ died on a cross is enough for me, this, and the fact that it is essentially a pagan symbol, is in itself, quite telling.

Again, I am not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that stauros cannot mean cross, despite what Liddell and Scott indicate? Or do you acknowledg ...[text shortened]... ean a cross but that in the case of the NT, it does not? What exactly is your evidence for this?[/b]

i hold the view that was expressed by Vine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i hold the view that was expressed by Vine.

Good. Then all I have to do is locate works prior to the third century in which stauros clearly means cross. Easy enough. The game is set.

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 realise that I meant to say 'several centuries'. The distance between Homeric and Koine is more than a few decades.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Good. Then all I have to do is locate works prior to the third century in which stauros clearly means cross. Easy enough. The game is set.

nope, for you have failed to address not one point made by Vine. Vine states that originally stauros meant stake, upright, no crossbeam, he then states that the cross was a pagan symbol, for the God Tammuz, which, through the churches deviation from the faith, entered, as so many other pagan concepts have and eventually was adopted. Thus your task is quite impossible, for it matters not whether stauros means cross or not, for the bible does not state that it was a cross, you cannot change this fact, stating that stauros means cross is neither here not there for there are hundreds of references stating that it meant an upright stake, your word against ours, hardly convincing. Secondly, you shall explain why you have adopted a pagan symbol, if you cannot nor will not, or dispute that it is a pagan symbol, then you must provide references as to why it is not a pagan symbol. If you acknowledge that it is a pagan symbol then that is self incrimination and proof that the church has indeed deviated from the simplicity of doctrine as was originally intended by the biblical writers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, for you have failed to address not one point made by Vine. Vine states that originally stauros meant stake, upright, no crossbeam, he then states that the cross was a pagan symbol, for the God Tammuz, which, through the churches deviation from the faith, entered, as so many other pagan concepts have and eventually was adopted. Thus your task ...[text shortened]... eed deviated from the simplicity of doctrine as was originally intended by the biblical writers.

Thus your task is quite impossible, for it matters not whether stauros means cross or not, for the bible does not state that it was a cross,

That is the funniest piece of reasoning yet. This has to make the RHP hall of fame for dumbest and most specious argument on a forum. If stauros does mean cross, then obviously the Bible does state that it was a cross.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Thus your task is quite impossible, for it matters not whether stauros means cross or not, for the bible does not state that it was a cross,

That is the funniest piece of reasoning yet. This has to make the RHP hall of fame for dumbest and most specious argument on a forum. If stauros does mean cross, then obviously the Bible does state that it was a cross.[/b]

i am sorry as i stated before your intellectual snobbery is hardly Christian nor becoming, here i shall spell it out for you, indeed in retrospect, i will not bother, the bible states stauros, it does not state cross, get it, you imbecile, it states stauros, an upright pole, how you can ignore this and state that it means cross is probably the biggest piece of bull that i think i have had the misfortune of encountering. If you are devoid of reason then that is fine, but if you continue in your ill mannered and insulting tone, i suggest you talk to someone else, in fact, please do. It is the equivalent of stating that an upright stick means a crutch, because your church has adopted the crutch as a symbol of its worship. Is is entirely pagan, as you are very well aware, and you are promulgating a pagan symbol. Why are you promulgating a pagan symbol?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry as i stated before your intellectual snobbery is hardly Christian nor becoming, here i shall spell it out for you, indeed in retrospect, i will not bother, the bible states stauros, it does not state cross, get it, you imbecile, it states stauros, an upright pole, how you can ignore this and state that it means cross is probably the bigge ...[text shortened]... t of stating that an upright stick means a crutch, yes that is correct, its a piece of nonsense.

here i shall spell it out for you, indeed in retrospect, i will not bother, the bible states stauros, it does not state cross, get it, you imbecile, it states stauros, an upright pole,

Ok, let me explain it to you, if stauros can mean cross, then, yes, the Bible would be stating that Christ died on a cross. This is a very simple application of logic. If I say x=y and also 'x has property z', then I would be asserting 'y has property z'. This is why I laughed when you said 'even if stauros means cross, the Bible does not say cross'. Are you unable to see the logical error here?

how you can ignore this and state that it means cross is probably the biggest piece of bull that i think i have had the misfortune of encountering.

I state that it means cross because authoritative lexicons confirm this. I have cited Liddell and Scott which says that 'stauros' means 'cross' in the NT, as well as in writings by Plutrarch and non-Christian writers. I am unsure why you do not accept this as evidence. It seems that you, not me, are blinded by dogma.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]here i shall spell it out for you, indeed in retrospect, i will not bother, the bible states stauros, it does not state cross, get it, you imbecile, it states stauros, an upright pole,

Ok, let me explain it to you, if stauros can mean cross, then, yes, the Bible would be stating that Christ died on a cross. This is a very simple application of lo y you do not accept this as evidence. It seems that you, not me, are blinded by dogma.[/b]

no its complete bull, for it needs to ignore its primary meaning, do you understand that? why would you want to ignore its primary meaning? are you stating that stauros does not mean an upright pole? are you stating that it cannot possibly mean an upright pole, please explain.

please tell the forum that its not a pagan symbol Conrau, go on, tell the forum where you got it from?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its complete bull, for it needs to ignore its primary meaning, do you understand that? why would you want to ignore its primary meaning? are you stating that stauros does not mean an upright pole? are you stating that it cannot possibly mean an upright pole, please explain.

please tell the forum that its not a pagan symbol Conrau, go on, tell the forum where you got it from?

Who said anything about primary meaning? Certainly the original meaning of stauros was a stake. Can you demonstrate that this was the primary meaning at the time of the composition of the NT?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Who said anything about primary meaning? Certainly the original meaning of stauros was a stake. Can you demonstrate that this was the primary meaning at the time of the composition of the NT?

yes, for as Vine stated, the idea of the cross did not appear until the church had deviated from the primary simplicity of doctrine and embraced pagan elements, of which the cross is a striking example. therfore it seems quite plausible that the Bible writer had no intent of depicting a cross when he penned those words, for the symbol would have been associated with paganism which came almost three centuries later.

Danish Historian Sven Tito Achen (expert on symbols), in the book Symbols Around Us, observes: “In the two centuries after the death of Jesus it is doubtful that the Christians ever used the device of the cross.” To the early Christians, he adds, the cross “must have chiefly denoted death and evil, like the guillotine or the electric chair to later generations.”

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]

Methinks we 'ld better avoid talking past each other. I was not talking solely about the primal/ basic use of the word during Homer, but for the use of the word "stauros" in the AtticoIonian.

Diodorus was talking (not in AtticoIonian but in Koine) about the Roman instrument of the implementation of death, which was consisted of two pieces of wood (you know there were several kinds of crosses for that purpose, and many times the person was crucified upside down). And Lucianus Samosatensis understands the word “stauros” almost the same way as Diodorus, for he quotes: “to gar aftou somati fasi tous tyrranous akolouthisantas kai mimisamenous aftou to plasma epeita schimati staurou toiouto xyla tektinantas anthropous anaskolopizein ep’ auta. Apo the toutou kai to technimati to poniro tin poniran eponymian synelthein. Touton on apanton eneka poson thanaton to Tau axion einai nomizete?” (because, as they say, the tyrants followed the shape of the body and, after having imitate its shape, with woods they were killing the people nailing them on these woods. So, due to this shape and to this tricky act, it took this tricky name. From the above, for how many deaths do you estimate that the Tau is responsible?” … Obviously, this specific instrument according to Lucianus is a T-shaped cross and not a pole. But Lucianus does not speak AtticoIonian, whilst Diodorus, who also speaks Koine, he is using the verbs “stauroo” / “anastauroo” freely, giving them either the meaning “crucify on a Roman cross” (Koine) or “put on a pole/ nail on a pole” (AtticoIonian). For example, Diodorus quotes also: “and Lykourgon zogrisanta tyflosai te kai pasan aikian eisinegkamenon anastaurosai” (and when he arrested Lycourgus alive, he blinded him and, after having him tortured by any means he put him on a pole).

AtticoIonian and Koine are different horses, and the rider in both cases should better be careful😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks we 'ld better avoid talking past each other. I was not talking solely about the primal/ basic use of the word during Homer, but for the use of the word "stauros" in the AtticoIonian.

Diodorus was talking (not in AtticoIonian but in Koine) about the Roman instrument of the implementation of death, which was consisted of two pieces of wood ( ...[text shortened]... Ionian and Koine are different horses, and the rider in both cases should better be careful😵

AtticoIonian and Koine are different horses, and the rider in both cases should better be careful

I agree. Can I ask, did you get these quotes from the internet? If so, could you provide the link? It is difficult for me to read them transliterated.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]AtticoIonian and Koine are different horses, and the rider in both cases should better be careful

I agree. Can I ask, did you get these quotes from the internet? If so, could you provide the link? It is difficult for me to read them transliterated.[/b]

Unfortunately I cannot spot the Greek text in the internet, however you can check the Lucian quote in “Diki Phonienton (Trial in the Court of the Vowels), 12.4-13”
😵