The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

[Ben C. Smith]

My answer, as you say, is that these possible forms are NOT all equivalent among them in terms of expectation. At least one is more expected and divinely providential than all the others. The coincidence of just a Xristos being CRUCI-fied is too much impossible to be a coincidence, therefore it can't be a coincidence.

Jesus' epithet starts with the shape of an X; Jesus' crucifixion is said to have happened on a cross the shape of a T. This does not seem remarkable.

You criticize me for being as naïve as Celsus, and yet you are fielding arguments which are as naïve as those of the apologists whom Celsus was rebuking.

[Giuseppe]

Jesus' epithet starts with the shape of an X; Jesus' crucifixion is said to have happened on a cross the shape of a T. This does not seem remarkable.

Were you an ocular witness to assure us that the cross was in the shape of T?

The question as to why the Xristos was allegedly put to death by crucifixion has as main answer the grammatical fact that the word Xristos begins in Greek with a X (khi) and that this is pictorially speaking a cross. The word Xristos suggested by its initial the kind of death. In addition this letter resembles the old last letter of the Hebrew alphabeth namely "Thav" (th) and this letter has a similar form as X. Now thav means "cross" or "sign". These grammatical facts suggested the kind of death the Xristos was subjected to.

(Max Rieser, The true founder of Christianity, p. 24, my bold)

[Ben C. Smith]

Jesus' epithet starts with the shape of an X; Jesus' crucifixion is said to have happened on a cross the shape of a T. This does not seem remarkable.

Were you an ocular witness to assure us that the cross was in the shape of T?

You brought up the tau.

The tav in paleo-Hebrew certainly resembles a chi; by the time of the Dead Sea scrolls (and the advent of Hebrew/Aramaic square lettering) it looks nothing like a chi:

4Q175.jpg (33.82 KiB) Viewed 8158 times

But paleo-Hebrew may have stuck around in coins and inscriptions. Still, you have to waffle between the form of an X and the form of a T, with nothing but speculation to give you the clue in the first place (by which I mean that there is no rule that a Messiah figure must be killed by an instrument which resembles the first letter of his epithet).

[Giuseppe]

I don't understand. Is the your argument that the tav doesn't resemble at all a chi in the 30 CE but a totally different symbol? Or that it resembles a T and therefore not exactly a X?

I read:

Even in Modern Hebrew, the emblem for the letter Tav remains a cross, and it’s been that way since antiquity

http://hashomerisrael2.com/index.php/20 ... -part-one/


Assuming that the core of the your argument is a weird fixation on the diversity of a X from a T, then :

Have you considered that the thav corresponds more to a + than a T?



Hence a + is more similar to a X than a mere T.

Addenda: I read also from the link above:

That being said, the most ancient letter Tav did not look like the Aramaic script of the letter Tav –> (ת) but was of two crossed sticks (x or + shaped)

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't understand. Is the your argument that the tav doesn't resemble at all a chi in the 30 CE but a totally different symbol? Or that it resembles a T and therefore not exactly a X?

Both, in a way. You are vacillating between the shape of an X, the shape of a T, and the shape of a + (or more like a lowercase t/tau in some fonts). Simultaneously, in literary texts of the period the Hebrew tav resembles none of those shapes.

I read:

Even in Modern Hebrew, the emblem for the letter Tav remains a cross, and it’s been that way since antiquity

http://hashomerisrael2.com/index.php/20 ... -part-one/

Neither the modern tav nor the tav as we find it in the Dead Sea scrolls looks anything like a cross or an X or the like:

[Ben C. Smith]

Here is the basic development:



Late Hebrew = "the Hebrew language used by writers from about the second century BC to the early Middle Ages."

[Giuseppe]

Both. You are vacillating between the shape of an X, the shape of a T, and the shape of a + (or more like a lowercase t/tau in some fonts)

a lowercase t has very a neglectable difference from a + and from a X insofar an intersection of two sticks is too much evident there. And an intersection of two sticks is all that that serves for the my argument.

The T is not found:

That being said, the most ancient letter Tav did not look like the Aramaic script of the letter Tav –> (ת) but was of two crossed sticks (x or + shaped)

I read:

Neither the modern tav nor the tav as we find it in the Dead Sea scrolls looks anything like a cross or an X or the like:

But you have pointed that in coins and inscriptions appeared still the symbol thav resembling the cross.

[Ben C. Smith]

But you have pointed that in coins and inscriptions appeared still the symbol thav resembling the cross.

I said maybe. I am not sure about that. You can find your own evidence for that.

My overall point remains that there is no rule that any of these letters had to provide the means of execution for the Messiah. My picking apart your letter shapes is simply for the sake of getting the details right.

You may have the last word. This debate is taking time away from more important considerations.

[Giuseppe]

But you have pointed that in coins and inscriptions appeared still the symbol thav resembling the cross.

I said maybe. I am not sure about that. You can find your own evidence for that.

Precisely what I will do.

My overall point remains that there is no rule that any of these letters had to provide the means of execution for the Messiah.

yet the coincidence is there. It is seen even today by some Fundamentalist Christians!

[Giuseppe]

I have found this image:



I read:

2BC - Nabatea.

And still:


Dated:

6 BC

They are Jewish coins from the Diaspora.

https://www.beastcoins.com/Collections/ ... rigins.htm