|
Name: R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Title: Temple of Augustus •
Date posted: 03/27/07 13:42
|
|
Q: The "chevron and circle" are not early Christian symbols, or masonic symbols, etc. It is much more likely that they are related to the Temple of Augustus and the cult of Caesar. See: http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/2007/03-/temple-of-augustus-or-temple-of-lord.htm-l-
|
|
|
|
Name: R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/27/07 13:44 |
A: Link did not copy right. Try this (Mar. 23, 2007 entry):
http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/
|
|
Name: R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/27/07 13:48 |
|
A: The Temple of Augustus. The coin of Herod Philip II (see examples of coins catalogued as Hendin 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 538, 539, etc.) struck at Caesarea Philippi shown above and in the last entry of this blog is almost universally associated with the Temple of Augustus in his territory by numismatists (Meshorer, 76-77; Roller, 191). See Hendin 530 where the shield feature is enlarged (here). It is thought that the temple appeared in this way at Sebaste as a tetrastyle (four columned) temple (though possibly enlarged at some point to be peristyle--six columned across the front and surrounded by columns as was the one at Caesarea Maritima). Such a tetrastyle temple of Augustus (with shield motif nicely matching the “circle”) may be seen at Pula, Croatia.
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 03/28/07 1:56 |
|
A: I love the Chevron and Circle because to me it represents my little vision, and I am always hoping to find out that the Jesus Movement was more Taoistic that people think. So I'm biased. To me the circle is reality emerging from the mysterious chevron. So I looked at temple and coin pictures and although I would say these are about 2 thirds similar, it is always a closed 3 sided structure and a filled circle. So I still think the tomb symbol was the vehicle for a distinct intent.
|
|
Name: R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/28/07 3:21 |
A: Anchorite,
It was quite honest of you to admit your bias. However, consider that the "symbols" were done above a doorway. The top of the doorway closes the triangle. It is a simple archetectural reference that was visible in the land on many coins of the day.
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 03/29/07 2:10 |
A: Guess what...
I found a picture of an ossuary that undermines my ideogrammic interpretrations. It has the wishbone for handles and plenty of ring-like circles. So? The entrance to the tomb may be just an esthetic inspiration. Oh well!
http://archaeology.huji.a-c.il/news/exhibit_ongo.html
(please- scroll down)
|
|
Name: Messiah •
Date: 03/29/07 20:27 |
A: Anchorite, Well that sure was an interesting ossuary adornment! Looks like the ancient Ouroboros, which I have found to be the best ever explanation to the Original sin methapore! The allegoric representation of a full featured snake that eats it's tail to adapt with the environment. It's clearly a symbol of our ordinary life as individuals and our interaction with the collective. Each time we do not struggle for our own individuality and instead choose the short easy track of the commonly accepted, we're taking a bite of our tail.
The early Arian Christians pointed out this problem. A fraction that became known was the "Anomean sect " grew strong in the1-4th century. They made big influences on Constantine I & II. Their views of life actually has surfaced many times later history also, like within the Polish "Sarmatism" in 16-19th century for example.
/M
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 03/30/07 4:40 |
A: Thank you Messiah!
The psychomotor task of drawing a closed ring asserts total capture in a moment. But it excludes the unknown, so it is also a defeat.
The open wedge, says source.
The ring & wedge together, indicate the indivisible. It would have been an excellent ideogram.
But the COMMONESS of these rings and wedges is the problem. Nothing special to connect a Jesus to an oriental Tao. So I'm deflated.
Original Sin? Let me hypothesize. Knowledge closes the mind in that the gaining is an eating, a satiation, perilous ego, recession of mystery, a flaunt, failure and loss.
|
|
Name: Messiah •
Date: 03/30/07 9:07 |
A: Anchorite, you got it backwards. Knowledge and understanding comes into the mind in two ways. The first is by own experiences, but as no-one can experience everything, things also comes to mind by confidence, faith (Someone else experienced it).
How do you know that you can die by jumping from the cliff? Well, by confidence and the logics around it. You would be stupid to try, just because you have problems to belive it.
However, there is a balance of individuality between the 2 ways to retrive understanding and knowledge.
If all your knowledge is based on others experiences, who are you them. Do you need, eyes, ears anything. No! You have eaten yourself.
The child who haven't learnt everything by it's own experiences is the untaimed dragon/snake. It does not have to be evil or hostile, because of that. But it's it's strengths as individual that the collective fear. That's why you find St. George killing the dragon.
So the original sin is the dilemma of knowing that we actually know that's it's the untaimed child that is the pure source of good, we constantly taim it to fit the collective.
/M
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 03/30/07 14:06 |
|
A: Good! The simplest error is one of direction.
|
|
Name: R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/03/07 14:38 |
A: See also:
http://www.uhl.ac/blog/
March 31, 2007
Prof. Bovon cries foul in the use of his work
Filed under: Uncategorized — drstephenpfann @ 4:56 pm
Disclaimers from Key Experts Used in the “Lost Tomb” Documentary, Part One:
Prof. Bovon: Mariamne is not the Historical Mary Magdalene of the First Century
The filmmakers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” and their advisors have asserted Mary Magdalene’s name in the apocryphal Acts of Philip as being “Mariamne” and that this was also the current and accurate name for the actual historical person, Mary Magdalene of the first century. They based this upon the important discovery of Prof. François Bovon of Harvard University, who published a recently discovered copy of the Acts of Philip, the first complete copy to be discovered. However, Prof. Bovon wants to clarify that he did not in any way state that the name “Mariamne” of the Acts of Philip should be the linked to the historical Mary Magdalene of the first century. The Acts of Philip presents the figure “Mariamne,” who both evangelized and baptised, as–geographically improbably–both the sister of Philip of Bethsaida and of Martha of Bethany (and therefore, of Lazarus). Bovon actually proposed that this Mariamne was the same character whose persona in time evolved to become the fictitious Gnostic sage and evangelist, more closely linked to the Mary of Magdala in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and the Pistis Sofia. Based upon apocryphal stories such as these, which speak of a close relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, and which give a high prominence to her in the early church, the storywriters of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” have surmised that Jesus and Mary were married and even produced a family. Of these three assumptions—(1) that the name of Mary Magdalene was not Maria or Mariam, as recorded in the Gospels, but rather Mariamne; (2) that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is to be identified with Mary Magdalene, though the Acts of Philip never says so explicitly, and (3) that Jesus was married and fathered a child—none is supported by any of the earliest records dealing with these individuals, namely the canonical Gospels and Josephus.
Cf. Bovon’s disclaimer on this issue on the SBL Forum site:
http://www.sbl-site.o-rg/Article.aspx?ArticleId=65-6-
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 04/05/07 1:18 |
|
A: Once again, Bravo!
|
