It is unjust to condemn the Christian religion unheard and unknown (ch. i).
We are denied the rights of ordinary criminals, and the use of torture is most inconsistently employed in our case.The mere name of 'Christian' is made criminal (ch. 2).The blindness of your hatred over-reaches itself and involuntarily eulogizes us (ch. 3).
Tertullain was quoted as saying:
"We have shown before that your deities are derived from shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above the gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses."
What Tertullian actually wrote was:"We have mentioned that |53 the earliest form of your gods is moulded by potters on a cross. But you also worship Victories, and crosses form the interiors of the memorial trophies of these. The whole camp - religion of the Romans consists in venerating the standards, swearing by the standards, and setting the standards above all the gods 40. Yet all those crests of images on the standards are necklaces of crosses, and those flags on your ensigns and banners are the robes of crosses. I praise your scrupulousness: you would not deify crosses bare and undraped."
Tertullian was merely making the statement that the earliest form of the Roman gods were being placed on crosses, not that the gods were worshiped on crosses from ancient times. They refused to worship an empty cross as the Christians were doing. Christians were being charged with sacrilege and disloyalty to the Emperor, not with joining their pagan customs or stealing their gods. If there is any doubt what he was writing, consider the following:"We are accused of Sacrilege and Disloyalty to the emperor.
We shall prove that your gods are no gods, for they once were men (ch. 10); and no reasons exist for their subsequent deification, since their aid in Nature is, and always has been, unnecessary, while their gross immoralities would rather condemn them to Tartarus than raise them to Heaven" (ch. II).Once more He is misquoted:
Again in his Apology (16), Tertullian raises the subject of Roman gods in the shape of a cross or in cruciform:
"I praise your scrupulousness: you would not deify crosses bare and undraped. But you also worship victories, for in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above the gods. Well, as those images decking out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of your standards and banners are robes of crosses."
Hence, Tertullian attested that the Romans bore images of not only a man but also gods on crosses, that they additionally possessed gods themselves in cruciform and that these images were objects of worship.
Tertullian has already made it clear that the Romans were not worshiping gods in the form of a cross. They were deifying humans on a Christian cross.
Chapter 16:
"You hold grotesque views respecting our Deity. We neither worship an ass's head, nor the Cross, nor the sun, nor a biformed monstrosity, resembling some of your gods."
Chapter 4:"First, then, how sternly you lay down this decision : 'Your existence is illegal!'
It doesn't seem likely that the Christians would be deemed illegal and sacrilegious if they were worshiping Roman gods."Chapter 10:
"We are accused of sacrilege and disloyalty. We shall prove that your gods are no gods; for they once were men. Just like in the above, Tertullian was claiming that the Romans were deifing certain of those they crucified. There were not crucifying their ancient gods or thy were not making gods in the form of a cross. They were not even worshiping ancient gods that bore the shape of a cross. The Romans were sacrificing children and priests on crosses and trees."
Sometimes a knowledge of ancient history can be useful in trying to understand the ancient historians. The majority of Bible critics and skeptics, and Bible defenders for that matter, should not be expected to be familiar with a lot of ancient history, but they all should be expected to be able to research what they are criticizing. The cross, in one form or another, has been around since prehistory. Christians have never tried to deny that. Most understand that an upright pole with a cross beam is not a Christian invention. Trying to prove that Christianity is pagan by using a cross is not realistic or logical. The Christians do not worship the cross, and they do not use it because of the design, but because the one they worship was killed on a cross. The Romans did not choose to crucify Christ on a cross because it was a pagan symbol. It was the most effective device for punishment. Until sometime in the Christian era, the never associated it with religion.The Romans were not strictly against Christianity. They were against those who refused to worship the Roman gods. It was seen as an insult against their gods and their rulers.They may not have believed that Christ was a real person, but they understood that the Christians believed he was. The Romans believed that a human had been defied following his death on one of their crosses. The Romans sometimes defied other humans they killed on a cross in mockery of the Christians. In their own religion they did not deify humans, other than possibly rulers. Hanging gods on a cross was not a Roman concept. Making gods of humans that were hanging on a cross was to prove to the Christians that it could be done by Roman gods as well. What they did not understand is that the cross was not the reason for believing Christ was a deity. Christ was a deity that just happened to die on a torture device, as the Jewish prophets had said he would be. The fact that the Romans made gods from humans in such a way indicates they believed that Christ had been a human.
Jan Assmann, the German Egyptologist,was also a believer in the Egyptian religion connection to Christianity. He can hardly be useful as an unbiased source. His lack of knowledge of the Bible, especially the chronology that dates the Exodus out of Egypt, is apparent. He believed that Moses took His belief of monotheism from the Egyptian king, Akhenaten who ruled in the 14th century bc. According to Scripture the Exodus would have taken place in the middle of the 15th bc. Moses was dead by that time, and the Isrealites were in Canaan. It is more likely that if their was any influence going on it was Akhenaten that got the monotheistic belief from the Israelites. He would have been in a position to have learned from the them. They probably would not have ever heard of Him. The truth is that Akhaneten did not found a new religion, nor did He attempt to do away with the anciniet gods of Egypt. He believed, from the past ,that one supreme god is charge of the other gods as well as guiding the kings, that the past would not be repeated.
Akhanetens reformed religion did not work for several reasons. There was a war going on in Canaan with a plague ravaging the country from Anatiolia to Egypt. He refused to send troops to save His city states, because of spreading the plague which eventually killed His daughters,and possibly him. Having Aten as the one supreme god did not work, due to Aten being blamed for the calamity. Jan Assmann believed as the earliest archeologists did that the Exodus took place in the 13th century. That believe came from the Bible, regardless of whether the archeologists were Bible believers or not. It was believed that the only Pharoah that could have been responsible for using slaves to build cities was Ramesses II. That has since been proven false, but Bible scholars are reluctant to make changes. it's difficult to change history regardless of how incorrect it proves to be.
Jan Assman apparently overlooked the writings of Eric Voegelin, who's expertise in mythical symbolism has little disagreement, claimed that Akhenaten did not base a new religion on monotheism.
“In spite of its universalist and egalitarian aspects, however, the hymn [Akhenaten’s hymn to Amon-Re] is neither monotheistic, nor does it proclaim a redeemer god for all men. The creation of the Aton is more radical than any of the preceding attempts to arrive at an understanding of the nature of divinity, but it still lies within the range of the polytheistic myth."
The Mosiac DistinctionIt is not clear how Budge saw a connection between the following and Dec 25th.
The celebration of the Opener of The ways was in the Spring.
"Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "I have appointed Horus, the firstborn."
Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "Him alone, Horus, the inheritance."
Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "To his heir, Horus, my inheritance."
Geb's words to the Nine Neteru: "To the son of my son, Horus, the Jackal of Upper Egypt
--- Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "The firstborn, Horus, the Opener-of-the-ways."
Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "The son who was born --- Horus,
on the Birthday of the Opener-of-the-ways."
Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, Vol.1 chapter 25 Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "Him alone, Horus, the inheritance."
Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "To his heir, Horus, my inheritance."
Geb's words to the Nine Neteru: "To the son of my son, Horus, the Jackal of Upper Egypt
--- Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "The firstborn, Horus, the Opener-of-the-ways."
Geb's words to the Nine Gods: "The son who was born --- Horus,
on the Birthday of the Opener-of-the-ways."
"they bring to him as an offering the first-fruits of growing lentils, and the days of his birth they celebrate after the spring equinox."
Plutarch, Moralia: Isis and Osiris, chapter 65The above gives credit to Geb for calling Horus the first born.It simply mean that He was an heir. It says nothing about only begotten.
A note to those who seem to despise Acharya for personal reasons, please do not use my material for that purpose. This is not a hate blog. She has been under attack by those who do such things and yes, she has been threatened, according to what I have found out. While some, mostly Christians, seem to think she deserves such treatment, I do not. There are ways to show disagreement other than hatred or attacks on someone's intelligence. Accusing someone of having a lower IQ simply because they disagree is not a way of proving more intelligence, but a way of losing credibility. This blog is about being historically accurate.Comments about the historical content of Her books or the movie will be considered. Personal attacks on Her character or expertise as a writer will not be. Please do not use me as a tool to further spread hatred. Any such comments will be rejected.
There is no reason to take the word of any individual as being the truth, including me. I welcome any comments, whether in agreement or not, providing they can be checked out.
