It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Cross the Most Powerful Symbol in World History?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   


In an effort to get the thread back on topic..

I think that any understanding of the cross has to come from a historical point of view.It has already been madequite clear how the Romans viewed the cross.


The cross was repugnant to Romans, Greeks and Jews alike, albeit for different reasons.

The Romans viewed the cross with loathing. No Roman citizen could be crucified – for any reason. Then who could? Only subject peoples could be crucified, and in Roman eyes subject peoples were scarcely human in any case. Subject peoples who happened to be terrorists or military deserters or rapists: they could be crucified. Terrorists, deserters, rapists: the scum of the earth, Romans thought: loathsome.

The Greeks viewed the cross with loathing as well. The Greeks sought wisdom in philosophy. Philosophy dealt with notions that have universal validity: truth, goodness, freedom. Then Christians came along and insisted that truth and goodness and freedom were found not in universal ideas but in a particular person, Jesus of Nazareth, who wasn’t even a philosopher. Greeks regarded all of this as ridiculous to the point of repugnant.

Jewish people viewed the cross with loathing as well. After all, they deemed Jesus to be a Messianic pretender. Since Jesus had been a victim of cruelty when the real Messiah was to eradicate cruelty, Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah. What’s more, any Jewish person who knew the sacred scriptures, especially the book of Deuteronomy, knew that anyone impaled on a stake was under God’s curse. The book of Deuteronomy said so in black and white.

How some View The Cross

I think it is especially important here to pay close attention to the Jews interpretation of the cross. I think it speaks volumes of their general thought pocess and why they believe as they do.




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   


posted by SpeakerofTruth



The cross was repugnant to Romans, Greeks and Jews alike, albeit for different reasons.

(1) The Romans viewed the cross with loathing. No Roman citizen could be crucified - for any reason. Then who could? Only subject peoples could be crucified, and in Roman eyes subject peoples were scarcely human in any case

(2) The Greeks viewed the cross with loathing as well. The Greeks sought wisdom in philosophy. Christians insisted that truth and goodness and -freedom?- were found in a particular person, Jesus of Nazareth. Greeks regarded all of this as ridiculous to the point of repugnant.

(3) Jewish people viewed the cross with loathing as well. They deemed Jesus to be a Messianic pretender. In the book of Deuteronomy, anyone impaled on a stake was under God’s curse.


(4) I think it is especially important here to pay close attention to the Jews interpretation of the cross. I think it speaks volumes of their general thought process and why they believe as they do. [Edited by Don W]



1) & 3) Strange as it may seem, there is no depiction of a crucifixion in Roman art nor is there any description how it was accomplished. Your item on the Jews may be the closest to the means used to inflict a crucifixion. Because of the simplicity of it, many researchers think a person was affixed to a vertical post, with the hands nailed together at the top, and the feet in a similar fashion at the bottom. One mummified pair of feet with a nail driven through the ankles has been found. The nail was first driven through a board which was placed on the outer side, to steady the nail driving.

The is one reference to a sharply pointed short stick that may have been used in crucifixions. The stick was nailed to the post about where the person’s anus would be, so that as the person fell downward, the pointed stick would cause the person to jerk upwards, and so on.

2) Traditionally, a person’s place of birth was attached to his name to help identify him. While the Scriptures say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He is always referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, or the Nazarene. Bart Ehrman has written a book, “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” which explains this.

4) This recount sounds more like it was written by a second year seminarian than by a historian or biblical scholar. Written for the not too discerning choir.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Nazi means 'branch.'

and 'truth' and 'separated out'

And remember God said, 'my servant the BRANCH.'

And also we know the cross WAS used as it is said it was used....so the not mentioning of it is very telling, IMO...something just NOT to be brought up in discussion! Then, that is.


There is a picture: Heel Bone Nail

The following I got from PBS


Within the caves were found fifteen limestone ossuaries which contained the bones of thirty-five individuals. These skeletons reveal under the examination of specialists a startling tale of the turbulence and agony that confronted the Jews during the century in which Jesus lived. Nine of the thirty-five individuals had met violent death. Three children, ranging in ages from eight months to eight years, died from starvation. A child of almost four expired after much suffering from an arrow wound that penetrated the left of his skull (the occipital bone). A young man of about seventeen years burned to death cruelly bound upon a rack, as inferred by the grey and white alternate lines on his left fibula. A slightly older female also died from conflagration. An old women of nearly sixty probably collapsed from the crushing blow of a weapon like a mace; her atlas, axis vertebrae and occipital bone were shattered. A woman in her early thirties died in childbirth, she still retained a fetus in her pelvis. Finally, and most importantly for this note, a man between twenty-four and twenty-eight years of age was crucified.

The name of the man was incised on his ossuary in letters 2 cm high: Jehohanan. He was crucified probably between A.D. 7, the time of the census revolt, and 66, the beginning of the war against Rome.... According to Dr. N. Haas of the Department of Anatomy, Hebrew University--Hadassah Medical School, Jehohanan experienced three traumatic episodes. The cleft palate on the right side and the associated asymmetries of his face likely resulted from the deterioration of his mother's diet during the first few weeks of pregnancy. The disproportion of his cerebral cranium (pladiocephaly) were caused by difficulties during birth. All the marks of violence on the skeleton resulted directly or indirectly from crucifixion.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   


posted by queenannie38

Nazi means 'branch.' And also we know the cross WAS used as it is said it was used . .

PBS Within the caves were found fifteen limestone ossuaries which contained the bones of thirty-five individuals. Finally, and most importantly for this note, a man between twenty-four and twenty-eight years of age was crucified. The name of the man was incised on his ossuary in letters 2 cm high: Jehohanan. He was crucified probably between A.D. 7, the time of the census revolt, and 66, All the marks of violence on the skeleton resulted directly or indirectly from crucifixion. [Edited by Don W]




I don’t know the Hebrew word for “branch” so I’ll take your offer. But that is not the same as to say the town of Nazareth. A certain Protestant denomination uses “Nazarene” in its name and I have heard of a certain sect or group called “Nazarites” but I don’t know if there is any evidence for such a group existing in the First Century, CE. I’d suppose anyone who followed or adhered to a person from Nazareth could be a Nazarite? Or a Nazarene.

We think we “know” crossed beams were used, but I think that tradition began in the 3rd or 4th century. We don’t have any “crossed beams” from antiquity. Although the symbol, a cross, is very easy to make, the earliest symbol used by Christians was a fish. Which probably had nothing to do with Saint Peter. Who did not become a “saint” until Emperor Constantine made him one.

I’m surprised carbon dating did not give a narrower range than 7 - 66 AD. Or did the dating in fact say that some bones were placed there in 7 AD and others in 66 AD? Or are we left to guess? As for the “census” revolt, Matthew aside, I did not know there was any evidence for a census or tax gathering found elsewhere. Because I do know Rome collected revenues or tribute, I’m satisfied the Romans had sone concept of enumerating people, but I am not aware of any record having been found that actually bears that out.

America was the first country to have a periodic census. The English Doomsday Books are the first we have in our hands. China had one around 50 BCE, but the census report was lost. We know of it only by later authors referring to it. We do not know wha twas enumerated. People? Men only? Hogs? Houses? We do not konw. All historical populations given until the 18th century are educated guesses, some far to high. The further back you go, the less reliable are the estimates.

As for Queen Anne, her reign was marked by the development of the two-party system. Anne personally preferred the Tory Party, but endured the Whigs. So she is the Red State Blue State progenitor!


[edit on 11/25/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I am not 'Queen Anne'

my name is ann
but my dad calls me queen annie....hence the nickname.

I live in an addition off the side of my mom's garage - so I can be her companion, security, and whatever else she needs me to be, now that my dad has crossed over to the TOM side....

Not to drastically derail the thread or disregard your comments, donwhite or GT - but in today, from this moment right now..and from now on...

it doesn't matter anymore about that old horrid rotten piece of wood 'the cross.'

It doesn't matter about what took place there, any more, either - it mattered crucially (no pun intended) for 2000 years, and lately it mattered more that anything else in the world...increasingly urgently....but no more.

The purpose is served HAS been served in full for ALL of us. And the moments spent on that cross have faded to the point where they do not hurt nor do they cause feelings of loneliness, desolation, abandonment, or anger...

It has served its' purifying process. I have been posting quite a bit today on ATS, in the two religious ATS and BTS forums....you might want to read what I've posted.

Everything I am writing, thinking, and speaking is completely sincere - arrived at through the path that leads to the foot of the cross, and is lifted up upon its wooden arms...but I am continuing on...beyond it...beyond the grave of Joseph...and the witness of Mary....

Please come with me - no need for any more pain in any man's heart connected to what happened that day...that day is the past and the past is dead.

Right now we are all ALIVE and we must approach all things, the throne especially, as LIVING CREATURES!

God bless us ALL!



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Oops double post...missed it, too. :shk:

WHILE i'm here, though, Speaker, that was an excellent link, thank you!

[edit on 11/25/2006 by queenannie38]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   


posted by queenannie38

I am not 'Queen Anne'
my name is Ann but my dad calls me queen Annie....hence the nickname. I live in an addition off the side of my mom's garage - so I can be her companion, security, and whatever else she needs me to be, now that my dad has crossed over to the TOM side....
God bless us ALL! [Edited by Don W]



I lived with my parents after a failed marriage. My ex-wife said, "Don, you are not marriageable material." I was 48 and she was 45 but she with 2 children and an ex husband. It is a good thing to look after your parents. My father died first, then 7 years later, my mother. Both died easy, of circulatory issues and quickly. I miss them but I have no regrets. My father was 89 and my mother 87 at the time of their deaths.

I have no doubt that your posts are sincere. Although I do no share much of your outlook, nevertheless, your’s is valid and worthy. I’ll look at some of your other posts.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join