Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Representations and depictions of the deity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    There is no evidence that the cross was publicly displayed prior to the fourth century. And as noted the CT article is somewhat "economical with the actualité".
    Obvious H_A is right. Many pagans all across the Mediterranean possessed a special psychic power during the first few centuries A.D. that allowed them to ascertain without ever seeing one that Christians venerated the cross since the very start of Christianity.

    Just as obviously, when Christians became predominant they started killing off the psychic pagans under the guise of pogroms against Jews, Crusades, Inquisitions, and witch hunts. That's why they aren't around today.

    That's what really happened.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    AFAICT, in spite of some minor issues being raised, there is not one radiocarbon expert who has ever said the results were unreliable.

    And as Faber notes, the Bible is very explicit about there being two separate cloths -- one for the head and another for a body -- which the Shroud of Turin contradicts. Moreover, IIRC there is no evidence that the Jews ever wrapped the deceased in the manner of the shroud, much less in a cloth using a weave that didn't become popular until centuries later.

    As for more recent research, from 2018: Forensic research (once again) suggests the Shroud of Turin is fake and Shroud of Turin Is a Fake, Bloodstains Suggest
    Yes there are. The problem is in the sampling and both radiocarbon dating experts and chemical experts - including Dr. Ray Rogers who was on STURP and had samples to test the hypothesis on - have in fact expressed concern about the resultant dates.

    Here's the abstract. (it's a pdf). Bedford and Marino authored the original paper. - here's the whole danged list. You find it - I think it's in the Bedford - Marino section but it could be buried in the Marino papers - they've been busy since the last time I read their work. Really busy...

    Before his death, Rogers authored a peer reviewed, published paper on the radiocarbon studies. Rogers was an atheist and was convinced that the image could be explained by chemical means - and that the radiocarbon dates were invalid.



    The presence of significant amounts of cotton in the sample area prove pretty conclusively that the sample was taken from a repair - which makes sense because match dyeing linen is a bear where cotton is much, much easier. Textile experts sent only photographs (from the original STURP collection) of the area either agreed that there was a reweave or, in one instance, declined to say. (That's from Bedford and Marino's original paper.)

    And no, the shroud does NOT contradict the Scriptural description - start here.

    Textile analysis - start here. Seriously, that's the stupidest objection ever - it's a linen twill. It'd be far more fantastical to believe that no one in the First Century could weave one. A three year old can weave a basic twill.

    And really, NBC? That's a 'scientific' source?


    Shroud.com is run by Barry Schwortz who was on STURP as the lead photographer. It's a gold mine of everything scientific shroud related - including the negative studies. It links directly to the papers where available and contains ALL the STURP materials.

    I caught a glimpse of the comment you made about STURP - it's utterly untrue. Rogers was an atheist. Schwortz is a Jew as was Adler (who didn't go to Turin but did do the blood chemical analysis - paper is available but the lecture is also on YouTube). STURP was Jackson's brainchild after a couple guys put a picture of the image through an imaging machine at the JPL - and watched it do what no photograph ever did - show a three D response. Jackson was a Christian but the team was not all Christian and certainly wasn't organized by the Catholic church. Unless you think Jet Propulsion Laboratories and Los Alamos along with just about every other prestigious scientific lab in the 1970's was run by the church - here's the team list from shroudofturin.com.


    STURP photographed the entire Shroud in multiple ways - all those pictures are available. What Bedford did was to look at the spectrographs - and wanna guess what corner doesn't look like the others? Rogers, in a phone conversation with Schwortz, was convinced that the radiocarbon dating was fine and that Bedford was just nuts. Challenged by Schwortz, he pulled his samples to disprove Bedford - then called Schwortz five hours later to say that Bedford might be right (he later proved that she was).

    FYI - Schwortz is still living and still manages the site. He is rather proud of the fact that shroud.com predates Google.


    Argh... I just wasted an hour on this. Thanks Tabitio. And y'all wonder why I don't come as much anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Ironic coming from someone who just linked to something available online.
    Well there are always reference libraries but ordering papers can take time. Hence if they are already available online they are easier to access.

    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I actually wished I had done as you said in that I would have found out about the second Christian writer in the second century who verified that pagans were calling Christians cross worshipers much sooner than I did. And wiki apparently has a list of Christian books written during the period that stress the importance of the cross to Christians during the period in question.
    To what precise period are you referring?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    It is relevant to the discussion about the use (or not) of the cross in early Christian customs, and whether a hiatus in the public display of the cross in connexion with Christianity is possible.

    And yes - it is sourced from the article in Christianity today. Given that the post was addressed to Rogue, context was enough to establish the fact.
    There is no evidence that the cross was publicly displayed prior to the fourth century. And as noted the CT article is somewhat "economical with the actualité".

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post



    Might I suggest you extend your reading beyond Wiki articles and what you can glean from Google Books and actually read some academic works on these topics?
    Ironic coming from someone who just linked to something available online. But then being a hypocrite is the one thing you do best.

    I actually wished I had done as you said in that I would have found out about the second Christian writer in the second century who verified that pagans were calling Christians cross worshipers much sooner than I did. And wiki apparently has a list of Christian books written during the period that stress the importance of the cross to Christians during the period in question. Both bits would have made my initial postings more thorough and conclusive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Did you pay any attention to page 783? Action in Rome against the Jews (and other groups) coincided with political instability. And the paper doesn't seem to deal with events BCE. It may be that Williams is closer to the truth than others, but she also admits that much of her assessment is based on reading between the lines.
    You wrote Persecution by the Jews.

    How did the subsequent list of incidents relate to the Jews persecuting anyone?

    As for Williams, what precise comment by her leads you to remark that she "admits that much of her assessment is based on reading between the lines"? [/QUOTE]

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    What on earth has any of the above to do with the Jews?

    Is it a C&P from the article or have you sourced elsewhere?
    It is relevant to the discussion about the use (or not) of the cross in early Christian customs, and whether a hiatus in the public display of the cross in connexion with Christianity is possible.

    And yes - it is sourced from the article in Christianity today. Given that the post was addressed to Rogue, context was enough to establish the fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    I suspect that Margaret H Williams' 1989 paper may be closer to the truth and the expulsion was for serious disturbances. You can read it here if you have a log-in https://www.jstor.org/stable/4153547...e074ff0358c5dc

    She quotes J A Crook in the final paragraph of that paper who commented that "if Jews were thought to be responsible for disturbances they got into trouble like everyone else". Her contention is that that is what led to the expulsion of 19 CE.
    Did you pay any attention to page 783? Action in Rome against the Jews (and other groups) coincided with political instability. And the paper doesn't seem to deal with events BCE. It may be that Williams is closer to the truth than others, but she also admits that much of her assessment is based on reading between the lines.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


    It appears to mirror the sort of persecutions the Jews faced later on. So if H_A wants to whine that Christians weren't "routinely" persecuted prior to Constantine, then the same could be said about the Jews during the Middle Ages and later.
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Whenever someone says something that tears another gaping hole into H_A's narrative we can expect her to sally forth and whine that it is "distorted and over-simplified" for nothing is allowed to show that once again the one who is in fact clueless and spouting oversimplified views is H_A herself.
    Might I suggest you extend your reading beyond Wiki articles and what you can glean from Google Books and actually read some academic works on these topics?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Persecution by the Jews.

    64 CE - Persecution (Nero)
    c. 115 Tacitus included an account of the incident in his Annales (XV, 44). Except for the manner of the Christians’ deaths, which he thought excessively cruel, he showed no sympathy for the Christians. Recording that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin” was executed by “one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” Tacitus described the Christians as a “class hated for their abominations” and guilty of “hatred of the human race,” an accusation he also made against the Jews. Theirs was not a “religion” but a “deadly superstition,” and hence worthy of repression.

    30 years of relative peace - then a pogrom that may have been undertaken at that time. Uncertain, but Domitian may have acted against Christians among Roman hierarchy.
    Domitian acted drastically against some members of the Roman nobility accused of “atheism” and “lapsing into Jewish customs.” It is not sure that Christianity was meant. However, Domitlla, the emperor’s kinswoman (neptis) who was exiled to the island of Pantelleria [near Sicily], was believed to have been a Christian.

    by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

    112 - Pliny's letter. Trajan gives a minor concession to Christianity in advising that Christians should not be searched out.

    124–125 Christianity given further concessions.
    Anti-Christian riots had broken out in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in 122–123, and the governor had written to Emperor Hadrian for advice. In response, Hadrian’s rescript (imperial order) allowed cases against Christians to be brought to trial, but ordered that the Christians had to be proven guilty of illegal acts before they could be condemned. Once again, “slanderous attacks” against Christians were forbidden. The rescript helped protect Christians, for now the emphasis was less on their name than on specific misdeeds.

    161, With the accession of Marcus Aurelius as emperor ... Christians were ... blamed for causing natural disasters by refusing to worship the deities that protected communities. Christians were also accused of immorality, unnatural vice, and black magic, all calculated to bring the rest of the population into peril.

    [/box]

    See-sawing between persecution and relative peace continued.
    "July 258, Valerian ordered that bishops, priests, and deacons be executed, that church property be confiscated, that socially superior (honorati) laity lose their privileges and imperial civil servants (Caesariani) be reduced to slavery (a status from which many had emerged).

    In some parts of the Empire this persecution of 258 259 was the bloodiest the church endured."

    43 years of peace and then
    In 303 ... came 10 years of persecution, the “Great Persecution” as it became known.

    All that would have made open display of the cross, but not the use thereof, rather problematical. However, as you pointed out, the Edict of Milan would have been a watershed.
    What on earth has any of the above to do with the Jews?

    Is it a C&P from the article or have you sourced elsewhere?

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    From the article:

    Despite this toleration, by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

    A distorted and over-simplified rendering of the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan.

    As for Christianity becoming the dominant force in the Empire, that arose from the luck of Imperial patronage.

    If only Julian had not died of his wounds!
    Whenever someone says something that tears another gaping hole into H_A's narrative we can expect her to sally forth and whine that it is "distorted and over-simplified" for nothing is allowed to show that once again the one who is in fact clueless and spouting oversimplified views is H_A herself.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Persecution by the Jews.

    64 CE - Persecution (Nero)
    c. 115 Tacitus included an account of the incident in his Annales (XV, 44). Except for the manner of the Christians’ deaths, which he thought excessively cruel, he showed no sympathy for the Christians. Recording that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin” was executed by “one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” Tacitus described the Christians as a “class hated for their abominations” and guilty of “hatred of the human race,” an accusation he also made against the Jews. Theirs was not a “religion” but a “deadly superstition,” and hence worthy of repression.

    30 years of relative peace - then a pogrom that may have been undertaken at that time. Uncertain, but Domitian may have acted against Christians among Roman hierarchy.
    Domitian acted drastically against some members of the Roman nobility accused of “atheism” and “lapsing into Jewish customs.” It is not sure that Christianity was meant. However, Domitlla, the emperor’s kinswoman (neptis) who was exiled to the island of Pantelleria [near Sicily], was believed to have been a Christian.

    by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

    112 - Pliny's letter. Trajan gives a minor concession to Christianity in advising that Christians should not be searched out.

    124–125 Christianity given further concessions.
    Anti-Christian riots had broken out in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in 122–123, and the governor had written to Emperor Hadrian for advice. In response, Hadrian’s rescript (imperial order) allowed cases against Christians to be brought to trial, but ordered that the Christians had to be proven guilty of illegal acts before they could be condemned. Once again, “slanderous attacks” against Christians were forbidden. The rescript helped protect Christians, for now the emphasis was less on their name than on specific misdeeds.

    161, With the accession of Marcus Aurelius as emperor ... Christians were ... blamed for causing natural disasters by refusing to worship the deities that protected communities. Christians were also accused of immorality, unnatural vice, and black magic, all calculated to bring the rest of the population into peril.

    [/box]

    See-sawing between persecution and relative peace continued.
    "July 258, Valerian ordered that bishops, priests, and deacons be executed, that church property be confiscated, that socially superior (honorati) laity lose their privileges and imperial civil servants (Caesariani) be reduced to slavery (a status from which many had emerged).

    In some parts of the Empire this persecution of 258 259 was the bloodiest the church endured."

    43 years of peace and then
    In 303 ... came 10 years of persecution, the “Great Persecution” as it became known.

    All that would have made open display of the cross, but not the use thereof, rather problematical. However, as you pointed out, the Edict of Milan would have been a watershed.


    It appears to mirror the sort of persecutions the Jews faced later on. So if H_A wants to whine that Christians weren't "routinely" persecuted prior to Constantine, then the same could be said about the Jews during the Middle Ages and later.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

    Unfortunately CT appears to have started putting their articles behind paywalls only allowing previews.
    Persecution by the Jews.

    64 CE - Persecution (Nero)
    c. 115 Tacitus included an account of the incident in his Annales (XV, 44). Except for the manner of the Christians’ deaths, which he thought excessively cruel, he showed no sympathy for the Christians. Recording that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin” was executed by “one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” Tacitus described the Christians as a “class hated for their abominations” and guilty of “hatred of the human race,” an accusation he also made against the Jews. Theirs was not a “religion” but a “deadly superstition,” and hence worthy of repression.

    30 years of relative peace - then a pogrom that may have been undertaken at that time. Uncertain, but Domitian may have acted against Christians among Roman hierarchy.
    Domitian acted drastically against some members of the Roman nobility accused of “atheism” and “lapsing into Jewish customs.” It is not sure that Christianity was meant. However, Domitlla, the emperor’s kinswoman (neptis) who was exiled to the island of Pantelleria [near Sicily], was believed to have been a Christian.

    by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

    112 - Pliny's letter. Trajan gives a minor concession to Christianity in advising that Christians should not be searched out.

    124–125 Christianity given further concessions.
    Anti-Christian riots had broken out in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in 122–123, and the governor had written to Emperor Hadrian for advice. In response, Hadrian’s rescript (imperial order) allowed cases against Christians to be brought to trial, but ordered that the Christians had to be proven guilty of illegal acts before they could be condemned. Once again, “slanderous attacks” against Christians were forbidden. The rescript helped protect Christians, for now the emphasis was less on their name than on specific misdeeds.

    161, With the accession of Marcus Aurelius as emperor ... Christians were ... blamed for causing natural disasters by refusing to worship the deities that protected communities. Christians were also accused of immorality, unnatural vice, and black magic, all calculated to bring the rest of the population into peril.

    [/box]

    See-sawing between persecution and relative peace continued.
    "July 258, Valerian ordered that bishops, priests, and deacons be executed, that church property be confiscated, that socially superior (honorati) laity lose their privileges and imperial civil servants (Caesariani) be reduced to slavery (a status from which many had emerged).

    In some parts of the Empire this persecution of 258 259 was the bloodiest the church endured."

    43 years of peace and then
    In 303 ... came 10 years of persecution, the “Great Persecution” as it became known.

    All that would have made open display of the cross, but not the use thereof, rather problematical. However, as you pointed out, the Edict of Milan would have been a watershed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    The balance of the paper is simply not relevant to the discussion at hand; what was in circulation per the relevant documents was. Woods' assessment of the reliability of those documents doesn't affect whether they were considered valid at the time they were written.

    By Woods' own comments, the source texts state what I have already relayed. By his assessment, those texts should perhaps not be regarded as reliable.

    Also according to Woods -

    "To summarize, the accounts by Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in AD 19 are second or third-hand accounts, and need to be treated accordingly. In so far as they all repeat the same bizarre claim that Tiberius conscripted 4,000 men at Rome in order to punish them for their religious beliefs, it is clear that they all depend on the same ultimate source."

    There doesn't seem to be a whole lot backing his assessment - in fact, it doesn't seem that he provides any supporting citations.
    I suspect that Margaret H Williams' 1989 paper may be closer to the truth and the expulsion was for serious disturbances. You can read it here if you have a log-in https://www.jstor.org/stable/4153547...e074ff0358c5dc

    She quotes J A Crook in the final paragraph of that paper who commented that "if Jews were thought to be responsible for disturbances they got into trouble like everyone else". Her contention is that that is what led to the expulsion of 19 CE.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    It seems possible on the basis of no more than gleanings, that the primitive church did use the cross and other Christian symbols openly. It also seems likely that from the late second century and well into the fourth (if not the early fifth), open display of those symbols would have ceased.

    Christianity Today has an article - not that it directly addresses the issue at hand - that seems relevant. The article's opening, "Beginning as a despised, illicit religious sect, Christianity endured 300 years of hostility to emerge as the dominant force in the Roman Empire" is something of an over-statement when compared with its content.
    From the article:

    Despite this toleration, by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

    A distorted and over-simplified rendering of the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan.

    As for Christianity becoming the dominant force in the Empire, that arose from the luck of Imperial patronage.

    If only Julian had not died of his wounds!

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Alien, 03-31-2022, 02:43 PM
1,819 responses
9,855 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X