Is the fact that the image of the Crucifixion actually pre-dates the event proof for you?
Posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Is the fact that the image of the Crucifixion actually pre-dates the event proof for you?
And your evidence for this is what exactly? Find me one single quote from an ancient historian that derives the Roman office of Pontifex Maximus from Babylon. Just one.
You make it sound as if the Easter date at Nicaea was *changed* from what it had always been. Not so. From Eusebius's History of the Church:
Chapter XXIII. The Question Then Agitated Concerning the Passover. 1 A Question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover.343 It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.The Quartodeciman custom was followed by the disciples of St. John in Asia....but it was not followed anywhere else. The majority of the churches around 150 or so followed the Sunday Easter. Irenaeus traces that custom in Rome at least back to Pope Sixtus I around 115-125 A.D.; and the fact that it was already very widespread a few years after suggests that it was probably itself an old tradition.
Nicaea *standardized* the date, it did not change the date.
Now let us add in those unique items posited by Freke and Gandy. We should first note the most obvious, for it graces the cover of their work: Based on "a small picture tucked away in the appendices of an old academic book" (though what the cite is for this book, we are not told), they feature a drawing of "a third-century CE amulet" with a depiction of a crucified figure which names "Orpheus Bacchus" as the figure, another name for D. According to Freke and Gandy, this shows that "To the initiated, these were both names for essentially the same figure." [12-13] To which we reply: That's the initiated's problem. The uncritical syncretism of a single person (the maker/wearer of the amulet) provides no evidence for the copycat thesis; least of all when the evidence dates several hundred years after the time of Christ (as does indeed all their evidence of D being crucified [52]). They also state incorrectly that there are no representations of the crucified Jesus before the fifth century; as Raymond Brown noted in Death of the Messiah, there are about a half-dozen depictions of the crucified Jesus dated between the second and fifth century, and even if this were not so, the literary depiction in the Gospels amounts to the same thing. Freke and Gandy chose rather a poor examplar to feature on their cover.It may well be a forgery; but even if it's not, the authors of the book it came from seem to think it is of the 3rd century. Oh, and someone ought to let Stormfront in on the news...they have it up on their website.Update: Poorer than we realized, in fact. Our old pal Venerable Bede has uncovered some new information on this picture used by F and G that really blows them out of the water. Bede has given me permission to use this from one of his online logs; we'll just report it here.
Freke and Gandy do not supply a reference for the picture in their book but kindly let me know by email. The first they supplied was R Eisler, Orpheus the Fisher (Kessinger Publishing reprints), first published in 1920 and where the fourth century date for the amulet is given and it is illustrated. Interestingly it is dated to the fourth century simply by virtue of its representation of a crucifixion so could, in theory be older or more recent.
The second reference was WKC Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion Princeton University Press, 1952. This is the second edition and discusses the amulet at some length on page 265. He mentions the views of Eisler and Otto Kern who was a very distinguished German expert on Orpheus. At the time, both considered the gem to be an ancient Orphic artifact and Eisler suggested their was a tradition of a crucified Orpheus. Pointing to the evidence of Justin Martyr, who denies there ever was a crucified pagan, Guthrie rightly rejects this interpretation.
...But there is a final kicker to this story that Freke failed to mention. I found an endnote to the 1952 edition of Guthrie's work (page 278) states:
"In his review of this book [Orpheus and Greek Religion] in Gnomon (1935, p 476), [Otto] Kern [unfeasibly esteemed German expert on Orpheus] recants and expresses himself convinced by the expert opinion of Reil and Zahn [more distinguished Germans] that the gem is a forgery."
I looked up the review in Gnomon but it is in German so I can't make anything of it. Still, the gem has been branded a forgery by noted experts. Luckily for Freke and Gandy that they don't think the gem important to their thesis, but you still have to ask what it was doing on the front cover of their book. And one can also have suspicions as to why they didn't give a reference to where the picture came from.
No. The image of a cross is ancient and pre-dates Christianity. Christ was crucified. That's why Christians use the symbol. The former has nothing to do with the latter. Also, the image you posted was not sourced was it? I went to the website you linked. Where is the source of the image?
Excellent work Claud!
Looks like our local anti-Catholics have been suckered by yet another forgery! No surprise there.
It *looks* kinda suspicious to me, but I'm no archaeologist. I would imagine if it is not a forgery, it almost certainly dates to the Christian era--perhaps some pagan/Christian conflation cooked up by some wacky gnostics.
This is too easy! Acts 8:9-13. Simon the Sorcerer entered the Church from a Samaritan (Babylonian) background and immediately set out to pervert the teachings of the Apostles. Justin Martyr See Chapter XXVI.
The Samaritans were descended from The Babylonians who had brought their "Mystery Religion" with them when they arrived from Babylon. Notice in verse 34....they are still practicing their Mystery Religion and this was the same religion of Simon Magus. This is one of the reasons Christ warned his disciples to stay out of Samaria [Matthew 10:5] as they were still practicing this same type of religion in the first century.
Of course you will now say that Simon had no influence on the early Church.....and I will chuckle.
The Samaritans were descended from The Babylonians who had brought their "Mystery Religion" with them when they arrived from Babylon. Notice in verse 34....they are still practicing their Mystery Religion and this was the same religion of Simon Magus. This is one of the reasons Christ warned his disciples to stay out of Samaria [Matthew 10:5] as they were still practicing this same type of religion in the first century.
Did not Jesus Himself travel through Samaria and, personally, convert many of the Samaritians ?John 4:5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.Did not Jesus, ultimately, send His Apostles to Samaria ?
6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
...
John 4:39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Did not Phillip, a NT evangelist, enjoy much evangelistic success among the Samaritans ?Acts 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.And the following describes Simon the Magus, does it not ... ?
6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
8 And there was great joy in that city.Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:Looks for all the world like a struggling new believer to me.
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
...
Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
Not thinking about who wrote it, what denomination they are etc, I think it is right on. False teachers abound in the world of Christianity. I have been to Churches and seen preachers on TV saying we are under grace, not under law, for example. (Or, "that is legalism".) I joined one Church and then left when the Pastor said the Ten Commandments were just a good example to follow, but were OLD Testament, therefore not for us today. The doctrines of men are alive and well all over the place! Excellent article IMHO.
He would have Avoided it if possible but it was on his way. Yes, he converted some Samaritans, but at the time of his visit they were still pagans and his disciples were surprised he was even talking to them [4:27]. He had instructed the twelve to not go there [Matthew 10:5] because these folks were a gentile people and the twelve were to go only to the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel."
Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money
Evidently you did not read my link to Justin Martyr so I will give you another one to Ireneus Book I, Chapter XXIII and Eusebius Book II, Chapter XIII....a later writer.
Now, if Simon was a genuine convert, he obviously fell away later.....probably right after Peter rebuked him. The statement was made earlier, "Show me any pagan convert that ended up changing anything in the early church." If you don't think that "Simon Magus" influenced early Christian theology in Rome, spreading it eastward to Greece, then I guess we'll just leave it like that!
You make it sound as if the Easter date at Nicaea was *changed* from what it had always been. Not so. From Eusebius's History of the Church:
Chapter XXIII. The Question Then Agitated Concerning the Passover.Nicaea *standardized* the date, it did not change the date.
1 A Question of no small importance arose at that time.
For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition,
held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews
were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the
feast of the Saviour's passover.343 It was therefore necessary to
end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen
to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world
to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which,
from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time,
of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.The Quartodeciman custom was followed by the disciples of St. John in Asia....
but it was not followed anywhere else. The majority of the churches around 150
or so followed the Sunday Easter. Irenaeus traces that custom in Rome at
least back to Pope Sixtus I around 115-125 A.D.; and the fact that it was already
very widespread a few years after suggests that it was probably itself an old tradition.
83 posted on 07/10/2006 10:43:10 AM MDT by Claud
What I can glean from the the last paragraph Thank you.
b'shem Y'shua
is that when John, the last Disciple died, Paganism
ran rampant in the church, particularly the Roman church.
Anti-semitism entered the church; hence the movement
away from the Holy Word of G-d and
towards the Traditions of man.
For sure. You only have to read the headlines to see just how deep into apostasty today's organized churches are. And it's prophesized to get even worse.
Excellent post Diego. This will be a good subject to study for me. Thank you.
That isn't what he wrote, though. I think any objective analysis of the Greek will tell you that "pillar and ground of the truth" is appositive to "church of the living God".
We can all go around assuming that Paul wrote what we want him to have written. That does quite a bit of violence to the idea that Scripture is our authority, however, because it makes what we want Scripture to say into our real authority.
BTTT
Now, if Simon was a genuine convert, he obviously fell away later.....probably right after Peter rebuked him. The statement was made earlier, "Show me any pagan convert that ended up changing anything in the early church." If you don't think that "Simon Magus" influenced early Christian theology in Rome, spreading it eastward to Greece, then I guess we'll just leave it like that!
This makes Simon a contemporary of Peter and the other Apostles.
Do you think that his (Simon's) influence overwhelmed that of the Apostles ?
Do you have any evidence that this one infiltrator had a lasting effect on the development of Christianity ?
As I said later, it can go either way and doesn't make much of a difference. God's church and God are both the pillar and ground of the truth.
There is evidence in the bible of rebellion within one of the early churches, a revolt against John and apparently the authority he had:
3Jo 1:9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 3Jo 1:10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
It's not a stretch to imagine that the church Diotrephes belonged to became corrupt because they rejected the authority of John. Whether Simon Magus had direct influence is unknown, but the problem of corruption began to occur early.
Do you have any evidence that this one infiltrator had a lasting effect on the development of Christianity ?
There is evidence in the bible of rebellion within one of the early churches, a revolt against John and apparently the authority he had:3 John 1:9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.It's not a stretch to imagine that the church Diotrephes belonged to became corrupt because they rejected the authority of John. Whether Simon Magus had direct influence is unknown, but the problem of corruption began to occur early.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
Yes ... individual churches had issues from the very beginning ... Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Ephesus, etc ... even as they do today.
Church leadership has had to consistently deal with these issues.
Note Jesus' letters to the churches cited in Revelation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.