"Cross" reference by Jesus question
Offline I'm sure this has been asked/answered before but was unable to find it in a brief search of this site so I am hoping a historian, scholar or anyone who has a comment might easily be able to help me with this.
In at least two passages that I'm aware of Jesus supposedly makes reference to cross bearing such as "take up thy cross" or as in the example below.
LUKE 14:27
"And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
My questions are these:
1. Was this cross bearing idea commonly (or at all) used in language prior to Jesus's story being documented in the bible?
2. Was his death on a cross specifically predicted or prophesied in the Old Testament?
3. Did Jesus specifically ever say that his death would occur on a cross beforehand?
Thanks for any help and, again, sorry for probable the duplication of someone else's question! Also, if this is in the wrong section of the forum, please advise.
"...no matter how pernicious it is; the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN
To my limited knowledge there is no evidence to support that the cross had any meaning associated to it prior to jesus' alleged crucifixtion in the christian sense. I still don't know if this is even referring to the crucifixtion or something else.
The symbol of the cross in various cultures had some meaning. The Egyption ankh represented the character for life for example. It's possible that all condemned were forced to carry their crosses to their execution so maybe this is some reference to that act. Perhaps it means that by picking up the cross your old life is ending and beginning a new life following jesus.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Thanks for your thoughts.
I suspect that Jesus's references to cross bearing were thrown in at a much later date after the cross had already been established as a symbol of christianity.
I could be wrong and maybe nobody knows but I am trying to find out.
"...no matter how pernicious it is; the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN
http://therealmccain.com/
From what I understand, in the Bible the word for what Jesus was crucified on was "stavros" which means a straight stake (it's the word from which "staff" was derived. )
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
I think you are right. I don't believe most people were crucufied on a cross at all the Romans did prefer the stake.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
hmmm... well, the Romanians speak a language that is closer to Latin than modern Italian is. they tended to use stakes on heretics, so the idea that Jesus was hung on a stake does have some merit, considering that the Romanians still hold to old Roman traditions, language, and stories.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Crucifixtion was ancient in the time of Joshua bar Joesph. What the condemed carried was the cross beam which was then affixed to the permanent, verticle support beam.
Early christens used the fish as a symble of thier faith, a cross would have been 'gallows humer' very offensive! About the same as drawing a noose on the door of a modern church. This attitude changed AFTER Constantine and his mother Helen (4th century). btw Helen was Christan, Emperor Constantine was only "converted" on his death bed when he was too sick to argue.
Any reference to "my cross to carry" sounds more like Shakespearian lingo; surprise!!!!!! the King James translation comes at the hight of Shakespeares fame and influence, early 17th century.
In J.C.'s time a person of big ego might have said "my burdon to carry" the reference was to what a camal or donkey would carry. Has anyone ever said in history "my scafold to support" (our modern equivelent) I do not think so.
jeffrick
No. It is important to remember that Luke was written in the second century where such language was common among Christians, where the cross had become a specific icon, where Mark and Matthew had already circulated. The saying originally appears in Mark.
No. When it comes to the New Testament, there is not such thing as 'prophecy'. There is only interpretation.
Not as far as I'm aware of. This is because the authors of the narratives specifically wanted Jesus' death to reflect a role, which any good storyteller would not reveal too early in the narrative. Luke is taking this saying from Matthew and Mark, the originators of it. It's language that is hinting (foreshadowing) events.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
First the wording of taking up your cross appears at least 7 times I can find:
Matt 16:24, Matt 27:32, Mark 8:34, Mark 15:21, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27, Matt 10:38
and probably more in slightly different wording.
Irenaeus wrote of this in his books Against Heresies in about 180.
from chapter 3 - He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;" see here.
This was about 150 years after the supposed events so there was plenty of time to take oral legends and wrongly interpret.
1- Crucifixion was a very degrading execution usually reserved for slaves and high treason, so probably not used commonly. see here.
2-The death of Yashua was not predicted. They try to use Psalm 22 and Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 to show it was predicted. Psalm 22 is King David whining about God rejecting him and the Isaiah quotes are about all of the people of Israel as "God's Suffering Servant".
See here for a long list After you read through some you'll see a pattern of how Christianity is trying to fit a square into a round hole. Some are about the messiah the Jews expected that was to lead them to establishing the Kingdom of God with the Jews in control, though most have no relationship and are taken out of context.
3- Yashua never said anything as he didn't write his own autobiography. Those that wrote the Gospels only say he said he would be executed, a safe assumption since he appears to have engaged in rebellion against Rome.
*edit* See Mark 9:30, Matt 17:22-23, and Luke 9:44 where Jesus foretold he would be killed, but not how.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Thanks for all of the replies. Very helpful and interesting. I really appreciate it.
"...no matter how pernicious it is; the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN
http://therealmccain.com/
Actually this method of torture/death had been around for a long time as far back as the Persians at least. As each empire was conquored by another it was refined and used. Alexander the Great used it to crucify one of his generals that disagreed with him. By Jesus' day the Romans had perfected it.
Folks here seem to be confusing Christianity with Catholicism. I see a lot of references to 'Christianity is wrong because...' and then a Catholic ritual, tradition or historical event is mentioned. That has to be ignored if you want the truth.
Catholicism is a part of Christianity. Christianity: The acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Guess what? Catholics are unanimous - Jesus is their Lord and Savior.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Uh no, actually it is not. They may call themselves Christians and many are I'm sure part of God's elect but DOCRTINALLY Catholicism has no part in being a follower of Christ. In 325 AD Constantine then emperor of Rome amalgamated Christianity with paganism to appease the barbarian hoards that were threatening Rome. He issued an edict of toleration at the Nicene council, took the pagan gods and renamed them. When the barbarians came to conquer they would notice these things. His idea was that everyone get along. The halo, for instance, is a symbol of sun worship. X-mas comes from fire and sun worship, it is not Jesus' birthday. Ask a Catholic about these things and any of their other traditions and most have no idea why they do them or how they got there. If they read their Catechism and Church history they would find out some things. Sorry, catholicism was not part of the early Church. The word Catholic itself means Universal, the Chruch is not Universal in that it includes every individual.
I see a lot of ignorance here on both sides of the arguments. Most posts do not use facts to back up their claims. I mainly see opinion and theory. Some of you are very good at backing up your claims, others are laughable at best. For example, the peson who asked if Adam named amoebas and bacteria. Please. That is a 'rational response'? 'Christians' that resort to name calling, anger posts, or say 'because it's in there' are not doing us any favors either.
For the record, I am a follower of Christ. I don't use the word Christian because I don't want to get lumped together with every individual that claims to be one, there's too much hypocrisy. Anyway 'Christian' is a blanket moniker and is used by anyone and everyone. There are Christians living in this country, this is not a Christian nation. The following have nothing to do with Christianity yet I have seen these mentioned all over this site:
x-mas, x-mas trees, and easter
pre-trib rapture
free will
accept Christ, sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, Roman's road
the beast (as a man)
any Catholic ritual
Thanks for letting me post, and replying.
Apologies, I also forgot to mention these:
the Talmud (Pharisees' opinion on what the law meant)
Saints (and statues thereof)
Santa Claus and Easter Bunny
Demons (same as fairies, genies, ghosts etc)
Since my password has not arrived in my email after several requests, I have to continue my post with a slightly altered name. I forgot the following to my aforementioned list:
Speaking in Tongues (the pentacostal way)
snake handling
Joseph Smith (the Mormon kind)
Hal Lindsay, Benny Hin, Oral Roberts, Joel Olestein, Billy Graham (Shall I go on?)
thanks
I thought I saw a Scottsman, but it turned out he was not a TRUE Scottsman.
Catholics are Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. So are Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Laterday Saints, and the Amish. If you take Jesus as your Lord and Savior you are a Christian. I don't care if you disagree with me or not. This is why we define words. If you don't like definitions, I suggest you stop communicating. Get with the program, please.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Trying to say they are not "True Christians." TM
By the way, the Buybull mentions demons.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
your argument, if you can call it such, is comparable to saying a Common Goldeneye isn't a duck because it's common name doesn't include the word duck in it.
"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
I prefer "Same shit, different smell".
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
I was under the correct assumption someone else would say that. Thanks, and I agree.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Laughable at best. I define words as well, and I didn't see one definition in any of these replies. Christianity is defined by the doctrine as laid out in the bible, not what someone 'thinks'. By your definition if Catholics all agreed to call themselves pink elephants then they are such becuase they say so. You need to get rid of your 21st century thinking. Read a book called 2 Babylons by Alexander Hislop or All Roads Lead To Rome.
Again, the Catholic Church and paganism have turned the correct word, daomon, (sp?) into something it's not. The word means to distribute fortunes, fulfill self. I'll post more on this later. The Exocist is fantasy, so is stigmata etc. Funny how all my other point were ignored and instead of returning with facts, I get made fun of. Typical. But I do enjoy the debate.
Is this your revenge on Pope Bendict XVI for claiming only Catholics belong to the "true church"?
You can have your opinion as to who meets your own constructed definition of a Christian, but unfortunately for you it does not agree with the one in use in the real world. You can call them false Christians, fake Christians, hypocrites, and pretend Chrisatians if you'd like.
I agree that those that claim to be Christian do not follow the alleged words of the man from whence the name supposedly originated. That does not mean they don't fit in the definition of the word Christian as used today.
You need to read far more on Constantine. Anything he did was for furthering his own ends, not because he believed in tolerance. Which gods did he rename into Christian gods? Mithra into Jesus is that what you suggest?
Actually I'm an ex-Catholic also ex- Lutheran and I'm very aware of where these traditions came from. Christmas is the B-day of Mithra, as well as all of the sun-gods as it was the Winter Solstice. Many of the ceromonial aspects to Christian worship are based on pagan rituals. Many try to claim the bread & wine ritual was from Mithra, but since Paul wrote it first it may have been the other way. Paul was involved in mystery religions as is clear from reading his letters. See : The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby
*Satire On*
Why would Catholics read anything regarding religion? Catholics don't even read their version of the Bible. The Church tells Catholics what is the correct belief and action. This keeps Catholics in better control than the Protestant technique of allowing anyone to interpret God's Word. I mean, look at you. You have your own view of the Jesus stories. That's just completely unacceptable. *Satire off*
The church clearly evolved and it adopted many ideas including the Trinity over the years. However, all of today's Christian beliefs were once part of the Catholic Church. If it had not been made the state religion by Constantine it would have died as most of the other mystic religions. The evolution of Christianity continued through time until the split in 1519 caused by Luther and Calvin. Your Jesus belief today is thanks to the Catholics.
I don't blame you at all. Many are exactly like you describe. Praise Jesus, ask for your support (this always means CASH) and bang the church secretary, or the male Meth hooker. If I were you I'd recycle a 1st century name such as the Ebionites.
X-mas trees - my pagan ancestors thank you for remembering.
Easter - all the fertility goddesses thank you
X-mas- China in general thanks you
Rapture - yeah right.
Free will - I'm sick of talking about this.
Accept Christ, sinner's prayer, yada, yada - I agree why accept Christ.
The beast - John was on a hallucingenic when he wrote
Any Catholic ritual - All theistic rituals are a waste
Pharisees - including Paul the deceiver.
Saints - Including the day of wandering saints in Matthew 27:52
Santa and the Eveready Bunny aren't real?
Demons - you've never met my ex-wife
Speaking in tongues - is a learned BS technique no more
Snakes - have a real purpose in our environment
Joseph Smith - cons work in many ways.
There is not room for all the BS theists on TV here.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
It is simplified and borrowed from Wikimedia Commons but
I wonder what this might look like in another 2000 years...
"...no matter how pernicious it is; the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN
http://therealmccain.com/
No revenge, just pointing out facts, not opinions.
Constantine - yes I am aware that there was much more to it than just tolerance, I only mentioned that part becuase it pertained to what I was referring to.
The fact that you know the background on the rituals etc is probably why you are an ex catholic. You are one person and saying 'i know where they come from' doesn't mean most catholics do.
you've responed to my 'list' above. SO you pretty much agree with me for th most part yes? I did say these things have no place in Christianity remember?
I will expand on my point later when I have more time, thanks.
Well I thought this would be much more fun but I am bored. I truly thought I'd get some intelligent debating here but instead I get:
'I don't care if you disagree with me or not.'
'I prefer "Same shit, different smell'
and the ever-popular 'I thought I saw a Scottsman, but it turned out he was not a TRUE Scottsman'
What happened to facts and logic? These are rational responses? I never even got to really get into it because you can't get past the 'Catholics are Christians' topic. Look at my original post, I used the word 'DOCTINALLY'. If they preach a doctrine different than what's written in the Bible, it's false doctrine, and therefore NON-CHRISTIAN!.
oh well...