Did the apostles have a problem with the cross symbol?

[Higher Truth]

Sources for the paper that I posted the link to:



The source material concerning Christ's death comprises a body of literature and not a physical body or its skeletal remains. Accordingly, the credibility of any discussion of Jesus' death will be determined primarily by the credibility of one's sources. For this review, the source material includes the writings of ancient Christian and non-Christian authors, the writings of modern authors, and the Shroud of Turin. (1-40) Using the legal-historical method of scientific investigation, (27) scholars have established the reliability and accuracy of the ancient manuscripts. (26,27,29,31)

The most extensive and detailed descriptions of the life and death of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (1) The other 23 books of the New Testament support but do not expand on the details recorded in the gospels. Contemporary Christian, Jewish, and Roman authors provide additional insight concerning the first-century Jewish and Roman legal systems and the details of scourging and crucifixion. (5) Seneca, Livy, Plutarch, and others refer to crucifixion practices in their works. (8,28) Specifically, Jesus (or his crucifixion) is mentioned by the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius, by non-Roman historians Thallus and Phlegon, by the satirist Lucian of Samosata, by the Jewish Talmud, and by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although the authenticity of portions of the latter is problematic. (26)

The Shroud of Turin is considered by many to represent the actual burial cloth of Jesus, (22) and several publications concerning the medical aspects of his death draw conclusions from this assumption. (5,11) The Shroud of Turin and recent archaeological findings provide valuable information concerning Roman crucifixion practices. (22-24) The interpretations of modern writers, based on a knowledge of science and medicine not available in the first century, may offer additional insight concerning the possible mechanisms of Jesus' death. (2,17) When taken in concert, certain facts -- the extensive and early testimony of both Christian proponents and opponents, and their universal acceptance of Jesus as a true historical figure; the ethic of the gospel writers, and the shortness of the time interval between the events and the extant manuscripts; and the confirmation of the gospel accounts by historians and archaeological findings (26,27) -- ensure a reliable testimony from which a modern medical interpretation of Jesus' death may be made.

HT:

I am still waiting for Yafet's sources........

 

[simchat_torah]

For this review, the source material includes the writings of ancient Christian and non-Christian authors, the writings of modern authors, and the Shroud of Turin.

ahhh... yes... the most accurate peice of historical evidence to date.

*insert hysterical laughter*

 

[simchat_torah]

*instert more uncontrollable hysterical laughter*

 

[ShirChadash]

How, may I ask, would the shroud of turin remotely prove Yeshua died on a cross rather than a stake/pale/pole/whatever. Frankly, as an ex-catholic, I can't believe anyone would use theshroud of turin to try to prove anything about Yeshua and His death. If this is considered a highly reputable source (for inference and speculation, no less) I would suspect the assertions being made.


FTR (sorry, that's For The Record) I don't know... I don't honestly care personally either, at this point, so I am able to see both sides... it matters little to me whether Yeshua died on a Tav-shaped cross, a pole or whatever else may be contended. I haven't the slightest bit of emotional attachment, and not an overwhelming amount of intellectual preference for either stand at this point in time. What I do care about is that the things done supposedly in the sign of the cross -- in the name of "Jesus", and connected with that cross... make it a very hurtful symbol for the people G-d says are, and will always be, His. That's enough for me to see why it isn't the best thing to use to identify the REAL Yeshua, a Jew, the Jewish Moshiach. And as a follower of HIS, I do not esteem the symbol of a cross, for that reason as well.

So to answer the OP, did the apostles have a "problem" with the cross symbol? I doubt it since 1) it was most likely not widely used as an identifying symbol during their lives, and 2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime.

 

[Higher Truth]

Did you miss this paragraph Yafet?

The most extensive and detailed descriptions of the life and death of Jesus are to be found in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (1) The other 23 books of the New Testament support but do not expand on the details recorded in the gospels. Contemporary Christian, Jewish, and Roman authors provide additional insight concerning the first-century Jewish and Roman legal systems and the details of scourging and crucifixion. (5) Seneca, Livy, Plutarch, and others refer to crucifixion practices in their works. (8,28) Specifically, Jesus (or his crucifixion) is mentioned by the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius, by non-Roman historians Thallus and Phlegon, by the satirist Lucian of Samosata, by the Jewish Talmud, and by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although the authenticity of portions of the latter is problematic. (26)


HT:

Still waiting....

 

[simchat_torah]

No, I didn't miss it HT. Its just that there seems to be so much weight given to... *insert absolute hysterical laughter*... breathe... *more laughter*.... to... (I can't stop... laughing...)... the ... *trying to breathe*...... Shroud of Turin, that it can't be overlooked that these sources are anything but, hmmm... what's the right word?

unreliable?

no, that's going too easy on them...


Anyway, I can't think of a better word at the moment, so we'll stick with unrelaible.

Now... you really want my response to the previous statements you made earlier? Ok, fine... have it your way. You referred to:

A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.

Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.

A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives.

"One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."

In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

All together, more than 100 first-century coffins were found on the Mount of Olives, many bearing additional names and cross marks.

All of which were discovered by the great and infamous P. Bagetti (a well known Italian Catholic scholar). P. Bagetti is best known for using these devices to 'fake' the finding of St. Peter, the first pope's burial. What Higher Truth conveniently left out of the story is that supposedlyp Mary's body, Martha's, and Lazarus' were discovered here as well. Why don't historians accept this? Because it was a fake. This wonderful Catholic priest who desperately needed to bring proof of St. Peter's body, 'discovered' many of these items.

Milik, the co-author of the Italian book which makes the claims Higher Truth is referring to, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. He goes on to state: "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." The Pope himself currently does not accept Baggeti's claims!

These 'proofs' are under much controversy and for the better part are not accepted by the scholastic world. Many protestant christians have blindly bought into this proof because it shows the useage of the cross. Yet, many don't realize, or want to assume, that this was a hoax put on to prove various Catholic beliefs.

Shall we really examine them HT? Or do you want to save face and let it drop?

These are fakes at best. I can detail them if you'd like, but you'll be sorry that we even addressed the issue. I really don't care to go through it all, its a rather confusing and time consuming discussion that would dominate an entire thread. I don't care to bring in that many 'big guns' over such a silly matter...

just my preference,
Yafet

ps. Besides, you've made the numerous claims without proof texts, so why am I being held to another standard? oh well... its probably best we let the issue go, nu?

 

[Higher Truth]

Zemmy:

2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime

HT:

Hitler forced anyone of Jewish heritage to wear the magen David to identify them so that they could be ridiculed and persecuted in their own towns, and eventually murdered. What are your feelings about that?

 

[simchat_torah]

If you want to look into it more, check out:​

The Rise And Fall Of The Roman Catholic Church ​

By the Author, F. Paul Peterson​

​

and the article: ​

The Discovery of Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem​

Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem​

By F. Paul Peterson​

 

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

Shall we really examine them HT? Or do you want to save face and let it drop?

These are fakes at best. I can detail them if you'd like, but you'll be sorry that we even addressed the issue. I really don't care to go through it all, its a rather confusing and time consuming discussion that would dominate an entire thread. I don't care to bring in that many 'big guns' over such a silly matter...

HT:

Please do Yafet, but only after you supply your scholarly proof behind you stake theories.

 

[simchat_torah]

As well, André Lemaire has an excellent article titled "James Ossuary: A Fake? - Israel Antiquities Authority’s Report Deeply Flawed"

He references the ossuary found by Bagetti in the article.

 

[simchat_torah]

Please do Yafet, but only after you supply your scholarly proof behind you stake theories.

The ole switch and bait?

Let's see... you made claims that certain artifacts were discovered, which you did not document. I stated those were fakes, etc. You demaned that I provide proof while you are free from this requirement, which I have given reference to a few articles, etc. Then you want to say forget that and provide proof on a seperate issue (bait and switch), you can't seem to make up your mind.

Higher Truth, you are baiting me, and I'm not bitting... sorry.

-yafet

 

[simchat_torah]

I now dismiss myself from this pointless conversation. I have provided numerous arguments, etc. No one will seem to change their minds, everyone is set in their ways. No one is willing to truly weigh out evidence provided, so oh well.

The discussion has degraded to bait and switch tactics, and I'm not going to play ball like that.

Have fun, and shalom,
yafet

 

[Higher Truth]

Simchat:

No, I didn't miss it HT. Its just that there seems to be so much weight given to... *insert absolute hysterical laughter*... breathe... *more laughter*.... to... (I can't stop... laughing...)... the ... *trying to breathe*...... Shroud of Turin, that it can't be overlooked that these sources are anything but, hmmm... what's the right word?

unreliable?

no, that's going too easy on them...

HT:

The shroud was one of the many things mentioned. This is from a peer reviewed paper published in the most highly acclaimed medical journal in the world. It is written by secular scientists and doctors, not religious people with a bias. If you would like to list some of your peer reviewed papers, I would be happy to read them.

 

[visionary]

How, may I ask, would the shroud of turin remotely prove Yeshua died on a cross rather than a stake/pale/pole/whatever. Frankly, as an ex-catholic, I can't believe anyone would use theshroud of turin to try to prove anything about Yeshua and His death. If this is considered a highly reputable source (for inference and speculation, no less) I would suspect the assertions being made.


FTR (sorry, that's For The Record) I don't know... I don't honestly care personally either, at this point, so I am able to see both sides... it matters little to me whether Yeshua died on a Tav-shaped cross, a pole or whatever else may be contended. I haven't the slightest bit of emotional attachment, and not an overwhelming amount of intellectual preference for either stand at this point in time. What I do care about is that the things done supposedly in the sign of the cross -- in the name of "Jesus", and connected with that cross... make it a very hurtful symbol for the people G-d says are, and will always be, His. That's enough for me to see why it isn't the best thing to use to identify the REAL Yeshua, a Jew, the Jewish Moshiach. And as a follower of HIS, I do not esteem the symbol of a cross, for that reason as well.

So to answer the OP, did the apostles have a "problem" with the cross symbol? I doubt it since 1) it was most likely not widely used as an identifying symbol during their lives, and 2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime.

Christianity is the only religion that wants the symbol of the weapon that killed their leader on their door, their church door, hanging on walls, around their necks, as if that will bring them closer to Yeshua. Stupid, that is what Yeshua did not want to happen. Idolatry if they think praying to the cross will save them.

 

[ShirChadash]

Zemmy:

2) it was not used as a malreasoned excuse for (and a sign connected with) incredible persecution and hatred of Jews during the apostles' lifetime

HT:

Hitler forced anyone of Jewish heritage to wear the magen David to identify them so that they could be ridiculed and persecuted in their own towns, and eventually murdered. What are your feelings about that?

I... haven't any. I don't wear, use, own, connect with a Magen David -- I'm not a Jew (yet ). But if Jews were forced to wear the Magen then -- and it doesn't keep Jews from choosing to wear it now with pride, then why on earth should *I* protest? ("what man hath ordained for evil, G-d hath turned to good" something along those lines, eh?) What I cannot do is UNDO hundreds upon hundreds of years of persecution of Jews under that symbol of a cross, and the affect of that on the Jewsih reaction to that symbol... and naturally the negative reaction to a man in whose name (supposedly) people persectued the Jews.

I'll tell ya what... I reject that "Jesus" -- the one in whose name people were persecuted, tortured, wiped out, hunted down for disagreeing with the supposed authority of his church... the one who has been nearly entirely stripped of his Jewishness, His true identity, and made over and re-presented as a hellenized Jesus who hates Jews and Judaism and decided to call a new people -- Christians -- cuz the Jews didn't "work out" or something. I reject that "Jesus" -- That is not who Yeshua is. But THAT is the "Jesus" Jews see when they see the "cross".

My Yeshua -- the REAL Yeshua, a Jew, a Jewish Moshiach, is not that man -- but if I go around wearing a cross and claiming I follow a Jewish Messiah -- what might that be saying to Jews, I'm wondering. I think I would be telling Jews that my Yeshua really IS that man in whose name Jews were hated.

 

[Higher Truth]

While everyone wants to talk about the shroud, which is minor, no one is talking about the other sources.

 

[ShirChadash]

It is written by secular scientists and doctors, not religious people with a bias.

*cough* *choke*

Uh, may I say that these secular scientists and doctors have biases of their own. "Religious people" are most absolutely, without one doubt, undeniably NOT the only people with BIAS of some sort. Bank on it.

HT -- are you Messianic, by the way? I've always wondered, but forgot to ask before.

 

[ShirChadash]

While everyone wants to talk about the shroud, which is minor, no one is talking about the other sources.

Sorry -- my point was that -- anyone who accepts the Shroud as being among a list of reputable sources, and mentions it along with what they consider reputable sources, has IMO negated any interest I might have had in reading their assertions. While I recognize there are many reasonable sources "out there" on history, and germane to this discussion... frankly I am quite convinced that *particular* treatment of the issue isn't worth my consideration.

I've answered your OP. It doesn't matter. Nope I don't think the apostles had one problem with it -- because until later centuries, the cross as a SYMBOL wasn't made an issue in any way, shape or form.

Shalom HT.

 

[Higher Truth]

The shroud is a burial cloth of a Jew that was crucified. I do not believe that it belonged to Yeshua, but that does not eliminate it from being admissable as forensic evidence. This is the way that real science approaches an investigation of this type.

 

[ShirChadash]

HT -- you haven't answered my question. How does the shroud of Turin remotely tell you that Yeshua was hung on a cross, not a pole? Frankly -- this is not at all "real science". I would like an answer to all my many questions to you -- which you have ignored throughout this entire thread even while baiting Yafet to answer to yours.