The Christian Cross - True Origin

[Etu Malku]

Ironically, the swastika was never an Indo-European symbol at all; India borrowed it from Tibetans.

Heinrich Schliemann consulted two leading Sanskrit scholars of the day, Emile Burnouf and Max Müller. Schliemann concluded that the Swastika was a specifically Indo-European symbol, and associated it with the ancient migrations of Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Hesus does not exist; it is just one of those names invented by confabulators of the same kind as Divos to try to derive the name "Jesus" some unrealistic way.

Hesus is closest to Esus, a war god.

NONE of the deities you mention were part of a "trinity".

In Zoroastrianism, Mithra is a member of the trinity of ahuras, protectors of asha/arta, "truth" or "[that which is] right". Mithra's standard appellation is "of wide pastures" suggesting omnipresence. Mithra is "truth-speaking, ... with a thousand ears, ... with ten thousand eyes, high, with full knowledge, strong, sleepless, and ever awake."

 

[bob x]

Heinrich Schliemann consulted two leading Sanskrit scholars of the day, Emile Burnouf and Max Müller. Schliemann concluded that the Swastika was a specifically Indo-European symbol, and associated it with the ancient migrations of Proto-Indo-Europeans.

"The day" that you are talking about is mid-19th-century. A lot of things that they believed 150 years ago did not turn out to be right. No swastikas are found in any other branch of Indo-European. It originated among the Dene-Yenisei group of the northern steppes spanning from Siberia to the Yukon; from the eastern end, the Navajo brought it southward to Arizona and northern Mexico; from the western end, the Tibeto-Burmans brought it southward. Indics borrowed it, but no other Indo-European group had it.

Hesus is closest to Esus, a war god.

Whose war god? I don't recognize "Esus" either. There is a ton of pseudo-mythology that you can find on websites which was actually invented just the day before yesterday.

In Zoroastrianism, Mithra is a member of the trinity of ahuras, protectors of asha/arta, "truth" or "[that which is] right".

No, Zoroaster posited that Ahura Mazda had seven, not three, emanations; Asha was one of them, but Mithra was not. Much later, pagan deities like Mithra were re-adopted into Zoroastrianism (a betrayal of the original intent).

Mithra's standard appellation is "of wide pastures" suggesting omnipresence. Mithra is "truth-speaking, ... with a thousand ears, ... with ten thousand eyes, high, with full knowledge, strong, sleepless, and ever awake."

If you give purported quotes, you should give a source.

 

[Etu Malku]

"The day" that you are talking about is mid-19th-century. A lot of things that they believed 150 years ago did not turn out to be right. No swastikas are found in any other branch of Indo-European. It originated among the Dene-Yenisei group of the northern steppes spanning from Siberia to the Yukon; from the eastern end, the Navajo brought it southward to Arizona and northern Mexico; from the western end, the Tibeto-Burmans brought it southward. Indics borrowed it, but no other Indo-European group had it.

Whose war god? I don't recognize "Esus" either. There is a ton of pseudo-mythology that you can find on websites which was actually invented just the day before yesterday.

No, Zoroaster posited that Ahura Mazda had seven, not three, emanations; Asha was one of them, but Mithra was not. Much later, pagan deities like Mithra were re-adopted into Zoroastrianism (a betrayal of the original intent).

If you give purported quotes, you should give a source.

At this junction I would ask what your credentials are in this field/topic?
Why am I to take your posts as fact?

 

[bob x]

I'm just somebody who has been a voracious reader for a half-century. Nothing that I say should be taken as fact just because I say it. If you want primary sources for the existence of the swastika design in the NaDene group (Athabaskans and others in Alaska and Yukon plus the Navajos who migrated south), or its linguistic connection to the Dene-Yenisei group with survivors in Siberia (the NaDene moved to the New World considerably later than any other Natives except the Eskimo-Aleut group), the anciency of the swastika among the Tibetans (the root bon in Tibetan means "Tibet" as a country, the pre-Buddhism paganism as a sect, and the swastika as a design), or the circumstances under which it was borrowed into India (the Bonpa priest had used a counter-clockwise swastika, as we also find among the NaDenes; Padma Sambhava, 7th century missionary, urged a change to a clockwise swastika, symbolizing the Buddhist practice of circumambulating shrines in a clockwise rather than counter-clockwise direction), I can look for what is web-available on these subjects.

Any assertion that is challenged ought to be justifyable from primary sources: that is, if there was a god named "Hesus" or "Esus" in some cultures, show me some old text from that culture saying so, rather than some 19th- or 20th-century author who claims this but gives no footnotes (there is an awful lot of pseudo-lore out there). Your source for the notion that swastikas were Indo-European in origin is the 19th-century beliefs about "Aryans" among the Germans; and their source was that the symbol is commonly found in India, and they presume that anything which is old among the "Indo-Aryans" must reflect the original Indo-Europeans. But: we just don't find it among the Germanics before the 19th century, or among Celts or Latins or Greeks etc. at any time, not even among the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranians; the very fact that the word "Swastika" had to be borrowed from the Indic is a testimony to the fact that there was no name for it in any other Indo-European languages. If I am mistaken on this, then what is necessary to show is some primary source showing the design used in some other Indo-European culture.

 

[Amergin]

BobX is a Christian apologist or in modern jargon (a spinner of the facts.) His ideas on the Swastika seem plausible. It is not found in Celtic, Roman, or Greek mythology or symbolism. It occurred in Indo-European Teutonic New-Speak "Aryanism" by Hitler in the 1930's. I don't know the exact date. A simple cross is bound to be found nearly everywhere because of its bland simplicity. Naturally it preceded Christianity by perhaps millennia. Even Christians avoided using it during the pre-Athanasian Roman Christianity. They preferred to think of Jesus as risen, alive.

They used the symbol of the occult hollow fish formed from two overlapping arcs. I do not know when they started adding the Greek letter for Jesus. I don't remember seeing the word-fish when I toured the Roman Catacombs. I remember that there were Mithraic symbols in the catacombs pointed out to me by the Italian priest who led the tour.

None of this is to embellish or diminish the central core of Jesus as great man or as man-god. Whether or not he resurrected like some 16 other saviours is up to the believer's mind.

Amergin

 

[Ben Masada]

Nonsense, the first monotheistic religion sprang from the Egyptian pharaoh Akhentaten, who implemented the worship of the Aten and no other gods. This can be seen of which later monotheistic religious thought sprang from. Trust me, the Christian belief system was in the works way before all your Caesarian ideology.

Malku, needless to remind you of, the reforms of Akhenaten were done in terms of reducing the pantheon of Egyptian gods down to the monotheistic system of one of the many Egyptian gods, the sun, which was called "aten." While the Jewish monotheism was of the One, Spiritual Invisible God, Creator of the universe, including the god of Akhenaton, the sun.
Ben

 

[Etu Malku]

Malku, needless to remind you of, the reforms of Akhenaten were done in terms of reducing the pantheon of Egyptian gods down to the monotheistic system of one of the many Egyptian gods, the sun, which was called "aten." While the Jewish monotheism was of the One, Spiritual Invisible God, Creator of the universe, including the god of Akhenaton, the sun.
Ben

And I you, that Monotheism is the belief of one and only one god, both Judaic and Egyptian religions (even Akhenaten's) allowed for other gods and deities but one supreme deity, isn't that correct?

I think of Akhenaten's religion to be panentheistic and have heard Judaism referred to as Monistic . . . but then again I hate all these labels!

 

[bob x]

If you give purported quotes, you should give a source.

On another thread, mojobadshah does give what looks like the source for your quotes about Mithra's titles.

 

[mojobadshah]

I agree that one of the oldest crosses carved by Homo sapiens is in France. It was a cross in a solar circle. The oldest cross in the Proto-Indo-European cultures was the Swastika in India. Hitler plagiarised the Indian Swastika Cross because he thought it mean true Aryan.

The Cross was adopted by Christianity in the 3rd century. First Christians used the occult fish symbol of two overlapping arcs. The crucifix was felt to be insulting to the pre-Constantinian Christians. Constantine adopted it to fit Indo-European religion along with the Sunday holy day, the Winter Solstice to celebrate the birth of legendary Jesus. This merged Jesus the newly deified Sun God included Mithra, Lugh, Lieu, Odin, Helios, Hesus and others usually part of a trinity. It has almost nothing to do with Judaism.

Ironically, the swastika was never an Indo-European symbol at all; India borrowed it from Tibetans.

The Zoroastrian's used the Garduneh-i-Mehr "Wheel of Mithra" otherwise known as the Garduneh-i-Khorshid "Wheel of the Sun." The earliest evidence of one of these on part where the Irano-Afghan region dates back to 5000 BC and comes from the Elamites Shards Bearing Garduneh-e Mehr (Swastika) Motif Found at Elamite site in Khuzestan

It's actually really twisted that a Christian can go around wearing a Christian cross and not have to worry about getting into trouble and the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) would probably run into trouble were they to wear the Zoroastrian crosses. Especially when the Nazi's used all types of crosses other than swastikas including "Christian" crosses like the Iron cross, or the Celtic Cross.

 

[bob x]

The Zoroastrian's used the Garduneh-i-Mehr "Wheel of Mithra"

With four bent arms coming out (counter-clockwise) from a central circle; similar to, but not really the same as, the swastika.

comes from the Elamites

Who were not Indo-European, it should be pointed out.

the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) would probably run into trouble were they to wear the Zoroastrian crosses.

Especially if Irano-Afghans insist on using that word "Aryan" which none of those peoples ever have, and distort the Zoroastrian symbol into an imitation of the Nazi swastika.

the Nazi's used all types of crosses other than swastikas including "Christian" crosses like the Iron cross, or the Celtic Cross.

The swastika was on the national flag. The Iron Cross (also used by the Kaiser) has also become somewhat Nazi-identified, but of course not to the same extent as the swastika. The Celtic cross was never a German symbol.

 

[donnann]

With four bent arms coming out (counter-clockwise) from a central circle; similar to, but not really the same as, the swastika.

Who were not Indo-European, it should be pointed out.

Especially if Irano-Afghans insist on using that word "Aryan" which none of those peoples ever have, and distort the Zoroastrian symbol into an imitation of the Nazi swastika.

The swastika was on the national flag. The Iron Cross (also used by the Kaiser) has also become somewhat Nazi-identified, but of course not to the same extent as the swastika. The Celtic cross was never a German symbol.

The cross symbol has been misused. It really refers to the vertical meaning the spirit the horizontal being the body and the center being the soul and points on meaning charkras or union points for union of those three things. Where they placed the nails ect on jesus was a devil worship practice meant to literally kill him to prevent union of body soul and spirit , which apparently didnt work. However I prefer to look more at the knowledge of the name JEHOVAH the devil can never misuse it to try to prevent or destroy union of body soul and spirit and the name has the knowledge of this union. And satan has no power with this name no lie exists in it.

 

[mojobadshah]

As to records... Since Jerusalem was destroyed around 71 CE it would be unlikely that many records prior to that era would have survived. Also there was a diaspora..

The Jews were not allowed to return to the city and it became Aelia Capitolina.

This quote here has been kind of haunting me. It really gives one the impression that what we know about the NT is from a much later period especially when you slap the visuals over this scene. The scene of what looks like a Jewish, not Christian temple, and then there's the added facts that the Romans themselves didn't actually buy into Catholicism until about 200 years later or 300 B.C. According to convention what we do have to substantiate that Christianity was on its way up around the time this scene is taking place is 1.) references to NT books as early as 2nd Clement if not 1st Clement by 90AD 2.) and complete compilations of the NT 300-400AD, but then if paper doesn't survive well unless its preserved in jars for example it withers away, and I know that the Romans had been invaded by the "barbarians" from the west destroying for one their libraries, and the Irish make a big point of being the ones who are responsible for having preserved a good deal of even Roman literature while Rome was experiencing these dark ages, and on top of that the Roman's didn't have an "unrecorded" oral tradition like the Hindus did, and I'm assuming that our oldest copies of the NT are actually from a much later period than 300-400 AD like 1000 AD, and considering that a lot of the references to the NT made by 3rd person sources tend to appear after the earliest copies of the NT and are sometimes found to be forgeries, I'd like to know whether there is any paleolinguistic evidence to support that these 300 AD copies of the NT to the same degree that there is paleolinguistic evidence that points to the Hindu texts dating to 1400 BC.

 

[mojobadshah]

ALRIGHT. So I took it upon myself to do a brief investigation into the paleolinguistic nature of the NT, and what from what I can see the two earliest versions of the NT are the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which are according to the sources attested to the 4th century, but they weren't discovered until much later like the 19th century. So, just to play a little devil's advocate here, is it possible that these texts are forgeries? I have the preconceived notion that when it comes to the ancient Hindu language that its not that widespread in contrast to, for example, the Koine Greek and Latin literature that is in our possession. So could the copyests have been familiar enough with other Koine Greek works to have transferred paleolinguistic material from them to recent copies of the NT to give us the impression that it is older than the versions of the NT in their possession at that time? From what I can see the Codex Sinaiticus version of the NT was recorded on animal skins, but do animal skins really last that long ~14 centuries? I'm under the impression that paper doesn't. In any event ~350 CE is long after we have evidence of the earliest Buddhist scriptures which date to the 1st century and the only reason that these "recorded" Buddhist texts as opposed to the "unrecorded" Hindu texts lasted so long is because like the dead sea scrolls they were incased in jars until their discovery.

 

[Ben Masada]

And I you, that Monotheism is the belief of one and only one god, both Judaic and Egyptian religions (even Akhenaten's) allowed for other gods and deities but one supreme deity, isn't that correct?

No Malku, it is not. The Jewish Monotheism cannot be compared to the Egyptian religon or monotheism of Akhenaten. And Akhenaten's monotheism last only as long as Akhenaten lived. The Jewish Monotheism has last for over four thousand years. With the death of Akhenaten, Egypt was back to Amon with its army of minor gods.
Ben