The True Cross

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by iBrian, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    I found an interesting article frmo a site I periodically visit. The article itself is quite long, so I'll post some excerpts for discussion. Really, the whole topics is quite fascinating. :)

    From http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/bswb_BR/bswbbr1904f1.html

    The article is quite interesting - it describes how essentially the whole issue was invented for political purposes, not by Constantine or his family, or even the sycophants who followed them - but because of factional wrangling between Jurusalem and Caesarea.

    This is the sort of Biblical archaeological honesty that I really like - not least, because the warts are acknowledged as warts. all too often "Biblical Archaeology" is seen as primarily a propaganda machine, divorced fom "real archaeology" by an underlying agenda to prove set assumptions. That's why articles from this site can be so refreshing. There's also an excellent examination of a range of historical sources, and plenty of questions raised and addressed. The fact that the conclusion points very much to politics only as the real source for the legend of the fragment of the True Cross being found shows the integrity of the search. And it's gratifying to see that the simple blame against the family of Constantine is avoided - notably, because the sources suggest otherwise.

    Personally, I'm fascinated by early church history - I admit I don;t know as muchas I should - which is why encountering such articles as this is always refreshing and satisfying.
     
  2. exastra

    exastra Established Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    you may be interested in these books:
    Jesus The Heretic, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Gnostic Gospels.
     
  3. Dave the Web

    Dave the Web Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds like an interesting article yet the link does not work for me.
     
  4. poolking

    poolking Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try this instead, looks like Brian goofed the link up. ;)

    http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/bswbbr1904f1.html

    Ok i started to read the article, but before I can continue to read it what is c.e. after the dates?

    I'm used to seeing bc and ad.
     
  5. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Whoops - yes, I goofed the link...all fixed up now, though. :)

    As for CE - yes, it's a name for dating commonly used by Christian groups - CE= Common Era, and is, for all practical purposes, the same as AD. BCE is also sometimes used - which means Before Common Era, and if effectively the same as BC.
     
  6. WHKeith

    WHKeith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ah - thanks for the correction. :) For some reason though it doesn't seem well used outside of some theological circles. I guess that's why I saw it as being a particularly Christian issue.
     
  8. BluejayWay

    BluejayWay More evidence? Thank you!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    From Religious Tolerance.org:


    My understanding is that the abbreviations "CE" and "BCE" were carefully chosen to accomodate both "Common Era" and "Christian Era".
     
  9. BluejayWay

    BluejayWay More evidence? Thank you!

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    However, to contribute something more germain to the thread, here are Mark Twain's thoughts on the True Cross, from
    The Innocent's Abroad:

     
  10. Sacredstar

    Sacredstar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well to add another pebble to the pond, the 'Original Cross' is the Sacred Golden Ankh found in Egypt, Africa and Peru.

    The golden Ankh unites both the womb of creation with the masculine.

    When worn it also align's one's energies.

    The Ankh is the 'Key of Life' and also a symbol of salvation. I was told that when this cross returns to its rightful place, salvation of humanity will have been achieved.

    So it begs the question why did the Church choose to remove the divine feminine and the womb of creation from the cross?

    Love beyond measure

    Sacredstar
     
  11. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    The cross used today is also a common form throughout history and cultures, though - not sure if the church ever removed a feminine form from the imagery, but in early Christianity, the cross was represented by "X" instead of the modern "t" form - and is pretty well known in early Christianity as the chio-rho symbol, with a "crucified" P upon the chi (cross). Not sure when or what that symbol changed.
     
  12. Sacredstar

    Sacredstar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    maybe the feminine form was removed prior to the church?

    Sacredstar
     
  13. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I find it interesting that the cross of Christ and the two theives would be nestled away anywhere, considering the fact that the Romans left the head post buried in the ground (about 6 feet), with a mortise joint cut about 12 feet up off the ground, in order to fit the cross beam in for the next criminal (the beam that held the arms of the convicted. This was done so all could see the results for at least 3 to 5 miles. I also wonder about the fact that any cross of such magnitude (size) would be carried anywhere easily, let alone stashed away in some cellar, let alone three, considering the fact that they weighed in excess of 700 to 1000 pounds. What Jesus carried on his back to Golgotha was just the cross piece, and that weighed nearly 200 pounds.

    Wood was scarce, and the Romans were nothing if not frugal, militarily. The Romans took one body down, and usually put another up immediately, on the same cross. The spikes were pulled from the wood and used on the next victim (unless they decided to just tie the arms to the cross beam, after breaking the legs of the crucified).

    Helena was not made a saint right then and there, considering the fact that there was not a "Catholic Church" per say until two hundred years later.

    Some scholars argue that the "cross" Constatine saw in his dream was not a cross at all, but an Ankh, and that is what he put on his soldier's shields before his victorious battle, and subsequent conversion to Christianity.

    A good reference is "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley, Copywright 1995.

    v/r

    Q
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I think the true cross, is that which we choose to carry in life. In other words, we choose to restrain ourselves from our desires (for the most part).


    v/r

    Q
     

Share This Page