History 2,000 year old books found in Jordan - new evidence for Jesus?

[CharacterFirst]

Bit OT, but why do Christians want to see the cross all the time? Wouldn't that be like Port Adelaide making their team logo the number 119?

Perhaps you are not reading all the posts STC?

The cross is not a symbol of defeat or torture or failure etc, but of what Jesus on the cross achieved - victory over sin death, the devil etc. Perfectly good symbol of "success" if you understand its reality and the symbol itself.

The turning on its head of the torture device is one of the great things about the cross of Christ - what people meant for evil, God used for good and his glory (inc. Jesus glory confirmed in his resurrection), and our benefit.

 

[TheMightyEagles]

Bit OT, but why do Christians want to see the cross all the time? Wouldn't that be like Port Adelaide making their team logo the number 119?

Yeah, the Bible itself says as much.

"But we preach [Jesus] Christ crucified [on a cross]: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23).

But for Christians, it is central to the faith and a source of pride - partly for reasons already given by CharacterFirst.

 

[STC]

Perhaps you are not reading all the posts STC?

The cross is not a symbol of defeat or torture or failure etc, but of what Jesus on the cross achieved - victory over sin death, the devil etc. Perfectly good symbol of "success" if you understand its reality and the symbol itself.

The turning on its head of the torture device is one of the great things about the cross of Christ - what people meant for evil, God used for good and his glory (inc. Jesus glory confirmed in his resurrection), and our benefit.

Alright makes a bit more sense when you put it that way.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Alright makes a bit more sense when you put it that way.

Hey STC, if we win this week, we will hold outright the greatest # of wins from 100 consecutive games in VFL/AFL history! 85 of the last 100! Go Cats!

 

[Jess Moondragon]

If Jesus returns today and follows much the same plotline, will the christian symbol become an electric chair or a gas chamber?

Typically on this forum ignorance prevails. The cross is a tantric (sexual) symbol, hence its significance in many traditions.

The swastika is a spinning cross, prevalent in Tibetan, Vedic traditions.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Typically on this forum ignorance prevails. The cross is a tantric (sexual) symbol, hence it's significance in many traditions.

The swastika is a spinning cross, prevalent in Tibetan, Vedic traditions.

I agree re ignorance of the quoted comment - shows no understanding of eschatology.

BUT, the Xian cross is not a tantric sex symbol mate, even if you want it to be. Its a symbol of Jesus death on the cross and what it achieved.

 

[FIGJAM]

I agree re ignorance of the quoted comment - shows no understanding of eschatology.

BUT, the Xian cross is not a tantric sex symbol mate, even if you want it to be. Its a symbol of Jesus death on the cross and what it achieved.

The cross can mean a number of different things today, and certainly "Jesus' sacrifice for humanity" is a widely accepted interpretation in the greater consciousness, and as such, has this meaning.

Notwithstanding, without going too heavily into the esoteric meanings, the Christian cross as it know known (bearing in mind that it is a universal across all religions), was originally symbolic of the creative forces. The vertical is a representation of the positive, or masculine force, and the horizontal the negative, or the feminine. The cross is a symbol of creation and procreation, from atoms to Adams.

 

[Max zero]

I agree re ignorance of the quoted comment - shows no understanding of eschatology.

BUT, the Xian cross is not a tantric sex symbol mate, even if you want it to be. Its a symbol of Jesus death on the cross and what it achieved.

To be fair if you religion often hijacks other religions symbols and holidays you will occasionally get these misunderstandings.

 

[MorabitoISGUN]

To be fair if you religion often hijacks other religions symbols and holidays you will occasionally get these misunderstandings.

Not hijacked mate. As has been said,the bible doesn't really give description of the cross afaik.

It is not a sex position and if you eroused by seeing the cross then your not all there.

 

[Max zero]

Not hijacked mate. As has been said,the bible doesn't really give description of the cross afaik.

It is not a sex position and if you eroused by seeing the cross then your not all there.

Tantra isn't just about sex and it does predate Christianity.

 

[Jess Moondragon]

I agree re ignorance of the quoted comment - shows no understanding of eschatology.

BUT, the Xian cross is not a tantric sex symbol mate, even if you want it to be. Its a symbol of Jesus death on the cross and what it achieved.

Yes it is a symbol of Jesus' death insomuch as it has acquired this meaning, much in the same way as the swastika has acquired an unfortunate meaning or a red light means stop.

In saying that I'm far less interested in acquired, arbitrary meanings and more interested in inherent meanings.

 

[Pie eyed]

Perhaps you are not reading all the posts STC?

The cross is not a symbol of defeat or torture or failure etc, but of what Jesus on the cross achieved - victory over sin death, the devil etc. Perfectly good symbol of "success" if you understand its reality and the symbol itself.

The turning on its head of the torture device is one of the great things about the cross of Christ - what people meant for evil, God used for good and his glory (inc. Jesus glory confirmed in his resurrection), and our benefit.

The evidence on whether Jesus died on a cross is pretty loose.

A tradition of the Church, was the adoption of the words "cross" and "crucify." This occurred approximately 300 AD.
These words are nowhere to be found in the Greek of the New Testament. These words are mistranslations, a "later rendering," of the Greek words stauros and stauroo.
"STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pole or stake...Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pole, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two-beamed cross.


I have no problem either understanding or accepting that Christians place special meaning and symbolism in the modern cross which is a composite of the Babylonian cross, the "Tao" symbol and precursor of the letter "T" which was the symbol of the pagan Sun God Tammuz worshipped long before Jesus mooted time, the Druids cross also symbolising Tammuz and the Tuetonic symbol of the Hammer which symbolised their God Thor.
Numerous other religions and cults around the time the Christian Church was recruiting from the pagan population used cross variants and the "Cross" was seen as a common denominator which eased conversion to Christianity.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

The evidence on whether Jesus died on a cross is pretty loose.

A tradition of the Church, was the adoption of the words "cross" and "crucify." This occurred approximately 300 AD.
These words are nowhere to be found in the Greek of the New Testament. These words are mistranslations, a "later rendering," of the Greek words stauros and stauroo.
"STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pole or stake...Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pole, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two-beamed cross.

That Jesus was crucified is one of the most well attested facts in ancient history. As critical Jesus scholar Dominic Crossan says, 'That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.'

But yeah, the exact shape of the cross that he was crucified on is disputed. Many scholars think it was T shaped.

I have no problem either understanding or accepting that Christians place special meaning and symbolism in the modern cross which is a composite of the Babylonian cross, the "Tao" symbol and precursor of the letter "T" which was the symbol of the pagan Sun God Tammuz worshipped long before Jesus mooted time, the Druids cross also symbolising Tammuz and the Tuetonic symbol of the Hammer which symbolised their God Thor.

Numerous other religions and cults around the time the Christian Church was recruiting from the pagan population used cross variants and the "Cross" was seen as a common denominator which eased conversion to Christianity.

Interesting theory, I've never heard this before. Can you cite any professional historians or scholars who agree with you here?

Of course the alternative explanation is that the reason the cross was used as a symbol was because Jesus actually was crucified on a cross. That seems to me to be a far better explanation than the early Christians chose a symbol which pagans were already familiar with to ease conversion, particularly given:

(a) we know that the Romans used T shaped crosses to crucify victims;
(b) we know Jesus was crucified by the Romans; and
(c) we know that ancient Jews were fiercly monotheistic and found pagan beliefs and pagan symbols representing other gods absolutely abhorrent.

We also have the Alexamenos graffito which depicts Jesus being crucified with his arms outstretched in the shape of a modern cross.

 

[Pie eyed]

That Jesus was crucified is one of the most well attested facts in ancient history. As critical Jesus scholar Dominic Crossan says, 'That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.'

But yeah, the exact shape of the cross that he was crucified on is disputed. Many scholars think it was T shaped.



Interesting theory, I've never heard this before. Can you cite any professional historians or scholars who agree with you here?

Of course the alternative explanation is that the reason the cross was used as a symbol was because Jesus actually was crucified on a cross. That seems to me to be a far better explanation than the early Christians chose a symbol which pagans were already familiar with to ease conversion, particularly given:

(a) we know that the Romans used T shaped crosses to crucify victims;
(b) we know Jesus was crucified by the Romans; and
(c) we know that ancient Jews were fiercly monotheistic and found pagan beliefs and pagan symbols representing other gods absolutely abhorrent.

We also have the Alexamenos graffito which depicts Jesus being crucified with his arms outstretched in the shape of a modern cross.

My post was not question the crucifixion rather the actual shape of the implement used. The discussion was about the symbolism of the current Christian Cross. I was commenting on the fact that any real crucifixion at or around the time of Jesus would have involved most likely a large stake as described by the Greek in which the new testaments composite parts were written. The first recorded depiction of the Cross in it's current form appeared in the 7th Century in paintings.
Crucifixion on a "T" shaped cross would also fit entirely the described evolution of the current Christian Cross being a commonly used religious symbol long before Jesus time.
The Romans were also note sun worshipper and the simple equal, 4 sided cross is and was a significant symbol in Sun worship. Contsnatine was a noted sun worshipper and his penchant or using the equal for side cross on his coinage has sometimes mistakenly been claimed to prove his very much earlier conversion to Christianity.

On the

 

[JeffDunne]

That Jesus was crucified is one of the most well attested facts in ancient history.

Say what?

As critical Jesus scholar Dominic Crossan says, 'That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.'

Say what???

You at least gave me a laugh.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Say what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

The crucifixion of Jesus and his ensuing death is an event that occurred during the first century A.D. Jesus' crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other contemporary sources, and regarded as an historical event...That Jesus was crucified is a well-attested event of Roman history.

You at least gave me a laugh.

Seriously mate, you should do less laughing and more reading.

 

[JeffDunne]

LOL, maybe you should read the links you provide.

Very few non-Christian sources refer to the crucifixion. The earliest non-Christian reference to the crucifixion is likely from Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syriac writer who refers only to a "wise King" executed by the Jews . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts

Yep, definitely "one of the most well attested facts in ancient history" . . . if you have a willing suspension of disbelief.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

LOL, maybe you should read the links you provide.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts

Yep, definitely "one of the most well attested facts in ancient history" . . . if you have a willing suspension of disbelief.

The fact that we have any non-Christian references to the crucifixion is surprising itself, given that Jesus was basically an obscure preacher in a backwater part of the Roman empire.

But we do. That's why virtually all historians accept that Jesus was crucified. Only kooks and "mythers" dispute this fact.

That Jesus was crucified is recorded in all four gospels, 3 of which are completely independent of the others (Matthew, John and Luke). These documents were all written within 70 years of Jesus’ death (by the usual standards of historical inquiry, extremely early accounts).

Other than the gospels we have a number of non-Christian sources dated later than the Gospels (but still within a reasonable period of time by historical standards) that record the execution or crucifixion of Jesus. Joesphus (reports Jesus was crucified), Tacitus (reports Jesus suffered the “extreme penalty” – virtually all scholars agree this is a reference to crucifixion), Lucian of Samosata (reports Jesus was crucified), Mara Bar-Serapion (records that Jesus was killed) and the Talmud (reports Jesus was “hanged” and being hung on a tree was used to describe crucifixion in antiquity).

Clearly, Jesus death by crucifixion is a historical fact supported by considerable evidence.

So there is plenty of corroboration for the crucifixion in sources outside the gospels (not that there is any reason to doubt the accuracy of the gospels recording this fact in the first place – they are our earliest and best sources after all).

Again, this is why even the highly critical scholar of the Jesus Seminar, John Crossnan writes, “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

There’s absolutely no good reason to doubt the accuracy of all of these independent reports. That is why scholars and historians across the board accept the FACT that Jesus was crucified.

Here's a challenge for you: produce the names of just 3 well credentialed historians that specialise in ancient Palestine that have argued in print that Jesus was not crucified.

 

[JeffDunne]

Your assertion was what I was laughing at. Given you need to clutch at "evidence" such as "reports Jesus was “hanged” and being hung on a tree was used to describe crucifixion in antiquity" then I doubt anything will convince you otherwise. I'll let Roylion give you the history lesson if he can be bothered (again).

FWIW, on the balance of probabilities I think he probably did exist. I never really understood why Christians try so hard to prove it as in itself it proves nothing in terms of the faith. However disproving it would prove a lot. In fact, I'd argue the desperate attempts of Christians and ridiculous assertions like the one you made give people more doubt than they otherwise might have had.

As for John Crossan, you've got be shitting me? If you ever wanted an example of someone on a life mission of self justification it is him.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Your assertion was what I was laughing at.

Why? It's true.

Given you need to clutch at "evidence" such as "reports Jesus was “hanged” and being hung on a tree was used to describe crucifixion in antiquity" then I doubt anything will convince you otherwise.

I don't need to clutch at anything. I clearly said that even without the non-Christian sources there would be enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was most likely crucified. The fact that we also have various non-Christian sources like Josephus reporting the crucificition makes it a slam dunk.

(Josephus was from a priestly family, lived in Jerusalem for the majority of his life, lived at the same time that other people were alive who would have been around when Jesus was crucified, and was potentially in contact with (or even closely related to) people who could have been involved in Jesus' arrest. Josephus also makes it quite clear earlier in Antiquities XX that he himself was in Jerusalem around the time James, "brother of Jesus who was called Messiah", was executed.)

I'll let Roylion give you the history lesson if he can be bothered (again).

Will all due respect to Roylion because of the time he puts in to his posts, there is very little of substance in there.

Most of it amounts to 'could have been this' or 'possibly that' explanations...no evidence to back it up.

Eg Jesus could have been an amalgamation of various different people...maybe this, maybe that...where's the evidence? All kinds of things could have happened. But it's pretty worthless advancing a 'could have been' without any evidence.

What we do have are various independent accounts that describe a guy called Jesus that was from Nazareth, who had a brother named James, that was baptised by John the Baptist, that was an apocalyptic preacher, that got in trouble with the Jewish authorities, that got arrested and crucifiecd, etc. Unless Roylion can come up with a better explanation that the one that is obvious - these independent accounts were all describing the same guy - his theories fall down.

FWIW, on the balance of probabilities I think he probably did exist.
I never really understood why Christians try so hard to prove it as in itself it proves nothing in terms of the faith. However disproving it would prove a lot. In fact, I'd argue the desperate attempts of Christians and ridiculous assertions like the one you made give people more doubt than they otherwise might have had.

I don't need to prove anything. I think it's amusing that people think there could be any doubt about the existence of a historical figure than virtually all historians say did exist and that was crucified by the Romans. By the way, this a question about history, not religion. There's plenty of atheist scholars who know that Jesus was crucified too.

So yeah, whether you like it or not, that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified is about as well attested a historical fact about antiquity as you could possibly get.

As for John Crossan, you've got be shitting me? If you ever wanted an example of someone on a life mission of self justification it is him.

You know him personally do you?

PS Still waiting for the names of those historians...

 

[Max zero]

Why? It's true.



I don't need to clutch at anything. I clearly said that even without the non-Christian sources there would be enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was most likely crucified. The fact that we also have various non-Christian sources like Josephus reporting the crucificition makes it a slam dunk.

(Josephus was from a priestly family, lived in Jerusalem for the majority of his life, lived at the same time that other people were alive who would have been around when Jesus was crucified, and was potentially in contact with (or even closely related to) people who could have been involved in Jesus' arrest. Josephus also makes it quite clear earlier in Antiquities XX that he himself was in Jerusalem around the time James, "brother of Jesus who was called Messiah", was executed.)



Will all due respect to Roylion because of the time he puts in to his posts, there is very little of substance in there.

Most of it amounts to 'could have been this' or 'possibly that' explanations...no evidence to back it up.

Eg Jesus could have been an amalgamation of various different people...maybe this, maybe that...where's the evidence? All kinds of things could have happened. But it's pretty worthless advancing a 'could have been' without any evidence.

What we do have are various independent accounts that describe a guy called Jesus that was from Nazareth, who had a brother named James, that was baptised by John the Baptist, that was an apocalyptic preacher, that got in trouble with the Jewish authorities, that got arrested and crucifiecd, etc. Unless Roylion can come up with a better explanation that the one that is obvious - these independent accounts were all describing the same guy - his theories fall down.



I don't need to prove anything. I think it's amusing that people think there could be any doubt about the existence of a historical figure than virtually all historians say did exist and that was crucified by the Romans. By the way, this a question about history, not religion. There's plenty of atheist scholars who know that Jesus was crucified too.

So yeah, whether you like it or not, that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified is about as well attested a historical fact about antiquity as you could possibly get.



You know him personally do you?

PS Still waiting for the names of those historians...

He already admitted that Jesus probably does exist. His point was Christianity needs him to exist or their entire religion falls apart. Whereas proving a guy called Jesus existed proves nothing.

Ron Hubbard can easily to proved to have existed, says nothing for the validity of Scientology though.

 

[JeffDunne]

Most of it amounts to 'could have been this' or 'possibly that' explanations...no evidence to back it up.

Ironic.

What was this thread about again?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

He already admitted that Jesus probably does exist. His point was Christianity needs him to exist or their entire religion falls apart. Whereas proving a guy called Jesus existed proves nothing.

Ron Hubbard can easily to proved to have existed, says nothing for the validity of Scientology though.

I know. I'm trying to explain to him that the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best attested facts of antiquity.

 

[JeffDunne]

I know. I'm trying to explain to him that the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best attested facts of antiquity.

Right up there with the world being flat and countless other myths derived from the same sources.

I'm convinced.

 

[JeffDunne]

How could anyone possibly dispute such irrefutable "evidence"?