I teensy bit more fuel to the fire. The “sign of the cross” was orginally the “sign of Tammuz” a “T” traced from forehead to chest to shoulder to shoulder. Note it is four stops, not three to designate the trinity. The name Holy Spirit is broken up into two words and should not be. Just another pagan custom added to the church back then.
The “sign of the cross” was orginally the “sign of Tammuz” a “T” traced from forehead to chest to shoulder to shoulder.
Agreed. But that is only one of many, many parallels.
And while I am mainly pointing to the church of Rome, please note that I did not leave my Protestant brothers out of it.
All through the OT, Jehovah is jumping-up-and-down mad at the "Judaizing" of paganism in His Holy people, and His Temple. How is "Christianizing" paganism any different?
It is really in my heart to cause everyone to remember what God has appointed - They are "shadows of things to come". Because the Holy Days were changed, and the dates and times, folks are confused by the very things they really need to be aware of.
What is the Mark of God? It is the direct opposite of the Mark of the Beast, and EVERYONE will carry one or the other, as it says in Revelation. Wouldn't it be nice to KNOW what that is? The answer to that is found in the Old Testament.
You said:
I teensy bit more fuel to the fire. The “sign of the cross” was orginally the “sign of Tammuz” a “T” traced from forehead to chest to shoulder to shoulder. Note it is four stops, not three to designate the trinity. The name Holy Spirit is broken up into two words and should not be. Just another pagan custom added to the church back then.
I reply:
Uhhhh, no. Tammuz is the Babylonian name of the Sumerian deity Dumu-zi(d). Yes, Tammuz did become somewhat popular in Canaanite-speaking lands, including Israel (linguistically, Hebrew is basically Canaanite). Cutting to the chase, how do you get a Greek tau/Latin “t” representation out of cuneiform Sumerian (which is written ideographically with syllabic phonetic helps (in later Sumerian)) Dumuzi, cuneiform Babylonian (which is written either ideographically or syllabically) Tammuz or alphabetic (or more properly, abjadic) Canaanite/Old Hebrew script Tammuz?
This sounds like old Jehovah’s Witness boilerplate.
And, yes, I know that Tammuz/Dumuzi is the god who seasonally dies and rises to life again. But the question is this: Which comes before which? Is the Christ of the Scriptures, i.e. the Seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) a late borrowing of the Jews from Sumer/Babylon, as the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, and all of its many and later intellectual incarnations (pun intended), like to think; or is Dumuzi/Tammuz a distorted, corrupted Sumerian/Babylonian echo of Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life? I’ll go with the latter explanation.
I even cross myself, as was done to me at my baptism years and years ago, every time I use the Apostles or Nicene Creed to remind myself that it is the Seed of the woman, the crucified One, who is the only Savior of sinners.
Oh, for crying out loud. The "sign of Tammuz" theory is as credible as the Elders of Zion. Even if the Persians used the Roman alphabet, which they did not, the symbolism of the sign of the cross is obvious.