# Can I ask a few questions about Christian symbols?



## Explorer (Aug 24, 2014)

I was talking with a dear friend today (the retired one who is a very sincere Christian), and she started talking about the sermon from earlier. We talked about it for quite a while. 

The conversation was very interesting, but I'm interested in exploring a set of assertions which were made. *If you think you already know where I'm going, I promise you, we'll get there, so don't spoil it for those who don't know yet. *

And I do hope we have discussion on these points as we go along. They are pretty obvious, but if someone thinks they're not well established or even logical, then they might argue that the point is invalid later on. 

Here's the first question: *Why didn't the early Christians openly use the Cross, an easily recognized symbol of Christianity even then, in the days of the early Church?*


----------



## AxeHappy (Aug 24, 2014)

From what I understand it was viewed as horrific to wear a symbol of the suffering of Jesus or something of that general nature.


----------



## AndrewFTMfan (Aug 24, 2014)

Because wealthy individuals needed a symbol to back their campaign to gain power over people at some point?


----------



## TheStig1214 (Aug 24, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> From what I understand it was viewed as horrific to wear a symbol of the suffering of Jesus or something of that general nature.



This. Or probably because the Roman Empire was still crucifying people at the time. It would have been like wearing a noose or electric chair on your clothing


----------



## Dog Boy (Aug 24, 2014)

Does our answer have to be in the form of a question?


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Aug 25, 2014)

Good question, didn't they use a Chi-Rho or a staurogram or something?


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 25, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Here's the first question: *Why didn't the early Christians openly use the Cross, an easily recognized symbol of Christianity even then, in the days of the early Church?*


 
From what I was told attending a private Christian school for a time, the early Christian's feared persecution, so did not always actively show symbols of their faith.

However, the cross (a symbol of execution) was not the earliest symbol of Christianity. If I recall correctly, it was supposedly the fish (the truncated infinity symbol style).







Of course, this is what was taught in a Missouri synod Lutheran school. I am sure that other denominations were taught differently about such symbols. I cannot verify the veracity of this information.


----------



## Given To Fly (Aug 25, 2014)

Define early church.
Early Christians were persecuted/killed and it was not until the _Edict of Milan_ (313) and Constantine's support of Christianity that Christians could openly practice their faith. It helps to have an emperor on your side.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 25, 2014)

Given To Fly said:


> Define early church.
> Early Christians were persecuted/killed and it was not until the _Edict of Milan_ (313) and Constantine's support of Christianity that Christians could openly practice their faith. It helps to have an emperor on your side.



You do realize that the whole "Christians were persecuted" thing is a myth, don't you?

There is no historical evidence for persecution, and plenty of counter-evidence.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 25, 2014)

ElRay, you know I respect you, but I suspect there was persecution of Christians. I'm going to go for an easy source, Wikipedia, but there are sources provided for what is presented in the footnotes.

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's assume, for the moment, that Christians might not have been under legal interdictions, but were pretty unpopular with the general population, because they didn't pray for the good of everyone, and they did claim to eat human flesh, *and* called each other brother and sister, which was a little incestuous sounding.

Yes, the Cross was a symbol, but not one you could use in public without getting the common folks riled at you. So instead, early Christians used the fish.

So the next question: Why wouldn't others recognize the fish, like the Cross, as a distinctively Christian symbol?


----------



## Grindspine (Aug 25, 2014)

Explorer said:


> So the next question: Why wouldn't others recognize the fish, like the Cross, as a distinctively Christian symbol?


 
Good question...

I do not know. I suspect that a fish could have been easier to pass off as a common symbol in seaside areas... I do not have a solid answer though.


----------



## Given To Fly (Aug 25, 2014)

It's 12:04 so I'm deferring to Wikipedia as well:
Ichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Given To Fly (Aug 25, 2014)

ElRay said:


> You do realize that the whole "Christians were persecuted" thing is a myth, don't you?
> 
> There is no historical evidence for persecution, and plenty of counter-evidence.



Look up Saul of Tarsus and the apostle Paul.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 25, 2014)

Well, let me ask a similar but distinct question: Why are creatures which use camouflage (including humans) not obvious to other creatures in those surroundings? 

I'm talking stick bugs, chameleons, undercover cops infiltrating a group, whatever. 

Look at the Bengal tiger.






Now look at the Irish girl sunbathing.






No. The other one. 

And now... environmental activist or undercover cop?






How does camouflage work?


----------



## MFB (Aug 25, 2014)

> Why wouldn't others recognize the fish, like the Cross, as a distinctively Christian symbol?



If I'm wagering all my money/credentials, I'd say it has to do with the feeding of many from something like five fish and two loaves of bread that he turns into enough for thousands.


----------



## asher (Aug 25, 2014)

IIRC from my days of taking Latin, which included a good amount of history, it was used more like spray tags or hand signals - much more clandestine or temporary so people knew whose house to meet at that night, that sort of thing.


----------



## SD83 (Aug 25, 2014)

Explorer said:


> How does camouflage work?



You try to appear as something you are not. Like the forest, sand, or a hippie. I don't necessarily understand where you're heading, that might be a language problem on my side...  Has there even been an agreement on what the answer to your first question was? As for the second... if it appeared to be nothing but vandalism (or a roman age form of "street art"  ), that would take a while for people who are not part of the community to understand. I also wonder if the cross was already "in use" by some other group...


----------



## asher (Aug 25, 2014)

Crucifiction was a common public display of punishment. Spartacus' uprising was crucified along the Appian Way for example.


----------



## vilk (Aug 25, 2014)

Well, I'd say that not only did people probably not use the cross just because it was an execution method--it probably was also because it was an execution method so incredibly common that it hardly had any association with Jesus. People who weren't christian and had never heard of Jesus were crucified far more often and prominently. 

BUT ACTUALLY, I'm like kinda sure that I remember reading that the evolution of the cross as a symbol actually doesn't have to do with the execution of christ. The cross was used as like some kind of pagan religious symbol and was merely transferred over to christianity like everything else. Right??


----------



## TheKindred (Aug 25, 2014)

99% of Christianity is just "pagan" dates, ceremonies, mythology and ideas re-appropriated.

Makes it much easier for the "heathens" to be on board if they're not losing any of their preexisting culture.


edit: wasn't the icthys originally just another symbol for a labia (back in the day, ALL ART WAS EITHER A LABIA OR A DONG)?


----------



## TedEH (Aug 25, 2014)

Subscribed because learning.


----------



## TheKindred (Aug 25, 2014)

actually ... to your first question:

Depending on how early of a Christian you're referring to, there wouldn't have been a reason to use the cross until it was incorporated into their dogma (i.e. the crucification of their messiah). Prior to that the cross should mean about as much as a fork to them.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 25, 2014)

Why can the human eye see more shades of green than any other color?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 25, 2014)

Regarding camouflage:



SD83 said:


> You try to appear as something you are not.



Exactly.

Someone else mentioned the Christian penchant for appropriating symbols, stories and holidays from other faiths. 

Which leads to the next question:

Is it at all possible that the fish came from another common religious tradition, and was used because then Christians could appear as something they were not, thus escaping notice?


----------



## ElRay (Aug 25, 2014)

Given To Fly said:


> Look up Saul of Tarsus and the apostle Paul.


First, you're relying on the presumption that the Bible is true. Second, there may have been INDIVIDUALS that were executed for criminal activity, but there is no historical validity to "mass persecution of christians". The most common trope, "The Coliseum Games" occurred after Christianity was the official mythology of the Roman Empire. In other words, the whole "Throwing Christians to the Lions" is a fabrication. Show historically accurate evidence of persecution of specifically christians that weren't part of a larger "persecution" of everybody that was not part of the majority group. Even if Christians were singled-out in the ~250 years between the time that Paul (The author of the two "Letters to ..." books of the NT, that was not an eye witness and was NOT the supposed disciple Paul) wrote his letters and Christianity became the official mythology of the Roman Empire, their numbers are dwarfed by the non-Christians and not-the-right-flavor-of-Christianity-Christians that were actually persecuted and massacred by the majority sect of Christianity.


Explorer said:


> ElRay, you know I respect you, but I suspect there was persecution of Christians.


Yes, and there's also evidence that individuals that happened to be christians were convicted and punished due to criminal activity, not merely because they were christians, and that there was not wholesale persecution, pogroms, etc. (like there were against other ethnic minorities) for that historically brief time that christianity was forming and not yet the official, government enforced, mythology. Also, any time that christians as a group might have been "persecuted", atheists, Zoroastrians, Gnostics, etc. would also have been "persecuted" for being minority beliefs.


Explorer said:


> I'm going to go for an easy source, Wikipedia, but there are sources provided for what is presented in the footnotes.


I haven't dug through the references in that Wikipedia article, but if they're of the same caliber of the "sources" for the "Historical Jesus" article, they're no better than using "Gone with the Wind" as a historical reference for The Civil War.


----------



## Given To Fly (Aug 25, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Show historically accurate evidence of persecution of specifically christians that weren't part of a larger "persecution" of everybody that was not part of the majority group.



This is an impossible request on so many levels. At no time in history has persecution ever been uniquely and universally focused towards a single group of people.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

Isn't it kind of irrelevant though? Just because other groups were equally persecuted, it doesn't make it any less valid that early Christians were too. They just decided to make it a central theme or a defining element of their identity and early history.


----------



## Given To Fly (Aug 26, 2014)

asher said:


> Isn't it kind of irrelevant though? Just because other groups were equally persecuted, it doesn't make it any less valid that early Christians were too. They just decided to make it a central theme or a defining element of their identity and early history.



Perhaps, if Christianity became irrelevant, but the complete opposite happened. To be honest, early Christian persecution is not a topic we dwell on. I'm curious where Explorer is going with the "symbol ideas."


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 26, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Subscribed because learning.



H O L Y F U C K !!!

You can subscribe to threads??!!

There are all kinds of buttons up there that I didn't know existed, so I've spent the last six years fucking around scrolling through heaps of bullshit to figure out the last places I posted. I thought that what avatars were for, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered!



My technological ineptitude often dazzles me. 

But hey, at least it's slightly relevant to the conversation. Those buttons were camouflaged. Grey buttons on a grey background aren't easy to see. Just as fish symbols amongst all those ... other fish symbols ... make it tricky to identify ...... 

I've just spent a while looking, and the only thing anybody seems to say about the fish thing is that apparently you'd draw one half, which didn't look like anything really, and then anybody who knew what was going on would respond by drawing the other half. 



Then again, a lot of people are saying it's a symbol of fertility, and specifically the ....... So maybe wearing a ...... symbol around blends in because in the particular place and time when they were trying to stay hidden, they were surrounded by cunts and it helped them blend in.


----------



## asher (Aug 26, 2014)

Given To Fly said:


> Perhaps, if Christianity became irrelevant, but the complete opposite happened. To be honest, early Christian persecution is not a topic we dwell on. I'm curious where Explorer is going with the "symbol ideas."



I meant irrelevant whether they were singled out amongst other groups or just one of many that were persecuted - not whether they were persecuted at all. May not have worded that right before


----------



## mysterior (Aug 26, 2014)

*Explorer,* if you want to find a logical explanation to the bible (or christianity, or any other religion whatsoever), you're gonna have a bad time, friend. I guarantee it.

A guy who knows bible way better than he wants.


----------



## vilk (Aug 26, 2014)

^She's not lol. Also this thread basically doesn't have to do with the bible.


----------



## mysterior (Aug 26, 2014)

that's why I added 'christianity, or any other religion whatsoever' which includes everything connected with this thread.


----------



## Overtone (Aug 26, 2014)

Does THIS have anything to do with it? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 26, 2014)

Moving a bit further...

We know that the early Christians weren't opposed to copping symbology, holidays, myths, whatever. That's why Easter is still named after &#274;ostre, that springtime goddess with the rabbits and eggs which continue as a weird fossilized part of Christian celebration of Easter. 

One of those things which Yahwists have opposed from the beginning is the female power of creation. In the beginning was the Word, as opposed to...







(This particular carving is pretty old.)

Could the Great Mother goddess, worshipped long before even the Jews existed, still have existed in one form or another among the pagan gods worshipped during the time of the early Christians?


----------



## Overtone (Aug 26, 2014)

Are you telling us we should look to Turkey with that picture?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

Exactly. Turkey.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Exactly. Turkey.



Turkey ... vaginas?


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

Yes.

BTW, I appreciate any invitation, but I won't be coming over for Thanksgiving at your house. I'm not saying the turkey will be adulterated, but... yeah, it crossed my mind.  

----

So now, getting off (and apparently getting off on) the subject of tainted turkeys...

Mnaseas of Patrae was a Greek historian in the third century BCE. He wrote of one goddess of the Phoenicians named Atargatis, the goddess of fertility, who had, as one of her symbols... a fish.

Her son was named... Ichthys.

"Hey, wait a minute, isn't that what they call the Jesus fish?," you might ask. "I mean, they say the acronym is why they chose that symbol."

Why, yes, yes that is what they call the Jesus fish. But it looks like they made up the acronym in order to explain why they were using the symbol of a pagan goddess. 

That name was more than a generic word, but is instead the name of the son of a pagan goddess, and when in association with that particular religious symbol, is a combination documented as predating Jesus by several centuries. (Atargatis and Ichthys even became fish in one story.)

And that's why the Ichthys wouldn't stand out as a Christian symbol... because it was already a symbol of a pagan goddess. 

So now the question to be answered is no longer, to whom did the symbol belong before the Christians hid their true faith by using it as camouflage? That's documented, by some Greek shlub who didn't even know it was going to be in question a few millennia down the line. 

Instead I'm going to ask, what did the symbol actually and specifically symbolize with respect to the fertility goddess Atargatis?

----

Incidentally, this all came up because my friend, whom I mentioned in the first post, asked me why she was seeing the fish symbol placed incorrectly on cars with its head pointing up, some of which also had pagan bumper stickers.


----------



## Edika (Aug 27, 2014)

While I'm not disputing any of the things you're mentioning Explorer, as I am not familiar with this historian and his works, I'd just like to mention out that Ichthys or &#921;&#967;&#952;&#973;&#962; written in Greek is the name for the fish as a general category. Now since the Phoenician alphabet was incorporated by Greeks they sure to have incorporated other aspects of their culture and probably some of the mythology you're mentioning. It wouldn't surprise me if the Phoenicians regarded fish as offsprings of this fertility goddess and the name was incorporated in the Greek language.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Aug 27, 2014)

While I haven't any sources, I seem to remember learning that the fish came from us being in the Age of Pisces. (Which, by most accounts, coincidentally happened pretty close to the time of the supposed coming of Jesus.)

Astrological age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Explorer (Aug 27, 2014)

So, what my friend wanted to know is why some folks, rather than have the fish like the...







...have it upright (but without something in it) like this.






What could those folks with pagan bumper stickers be saying?


----------



## Edika (Aug 28, 2014)

Well the first thing that comes to mind when you put the images that way it is like a penis ready to penetrate a vagina. I know, I have a dirty mind.


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 28, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Yes.
> 
> BTW, I appreciate any invitation, but I won't be coming over for Thanksgiving at your house. I'm not saying the turkey will be adulterated, but... yeah, it crossed my mind.



Good call, man. I mean, even though my partner's American, we don't do Thanksgiving in these parts, so there's really no danger of me adulterating any turkeys ... ... until Christmas, which is the only time of year Australians eat the silly birds. The standard Christmas combination of heatstroke and overconsumption of alcohol (Aussie tradition) makes me see turkeys in a new and abnormally sexy light (not an Aussie tradition, it's more of a bogan thing).

Closer to topic, I think I'm just as dirty as Edika (way dirtier, as the above text proves). That's a cock fish. Or a vagina fish. Probably both.


----------



## asher (Aug 28, 2014)

Or neither of you guys are that dirty and that was sort of the (original, if not adopted) point.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 28, 2014)

Edika said:


> Well the first thing that comes to mind when you put the images that way *it is like ...a vagina*. I know, I have a dirty mind.



Bingo. 

*NOT SAFE FOR WORK*. Really.

Also *NOT SAFE FOR WORK.*

Yes, the Great Mother and a lot of fertility goddesses use a certain kind of symbolism, including the "turkey" with the huge opening, which expresses the awe people felt at the power of creation that women have. 

it's interesting that the symbol of that power was adopted by a faith of which one of the main early proponents was completely against women as equals. A lot of the anit-female-authority stuff came from Paul and not Jesus himself, and jesus had no issues with Mary Magdalene. 

it's pretty funny nowadays when you hear Christian fundamentalists who argue that this stuff isn't true, and that the symbol wasn't attached to a goddess, and that the Ichthys has nothing to do with her or with her son of the same name as the symbol. 

Instead, they say that the early Christians, most of whom were illiterate, came up the symbol as an acronym which they were unable to even spell. 

I'm sure that if pressed far enough, some would deny that Christmas has nothing to do with Saturnalia, the holiday it replaced, nor with Yuletime (yup, just like that Yule log which doesn't really exist), just like Easter has nothing to do with Ostara, the goddess with the same name as the holiday, and with the bunnies and eggs who happened to have a major holiday which was at the same time as the Easter holiday which supplanted it. 

----

So I told my friend, who I believe is now almost 70, all this stuff, leading her through the same sequence of logic... and she was shocked, but didn't argue about it being untrue. She later called on on Tuesday, after she had time to read up on all the names she had asked me to write down, and said she couldn't wait to talk to her pastor about it. (He's the guy who gave up on converting me after we talked pretty deeply about Biblical exegesis, and he couldn't refute any of the points I brought up. I felt bad for him, because he and I had much the same education in those things.)

I have a feeling her pastor is going to have a weird time of it if he sticks to his guns, because he and I would normally talk after we had dinner at my friend's house, and she does know that I know what I'm talking about, and that her pastor had argued against what I claimed was in Scripture... and that he got it wrong. I also would call him out when he would change the subject, just asking, "So... are you now unable to disprove that point? Just so you don't later tell (my friend) that you had a reason why I'm wrong on this, when you don't." (Funny, I almost typed her name, and I'm normally careful about that stuff.)

----

So, to summarize:

*Early Christians used the pre-existing vagina/fish symbol of a pre-existing pagan fertility goddess, named for her son, because it enabled them to camouflage their true faith from those for whom that faith was unpopular. *

I wasn't expecting that conversation with my firend, but hopefully at least some of you found it interesting in where it led.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 29, 2014)

That is interesting. And reading this thread reminded me a lot of reading The Davinci Code.  The way you laid out the questions and answers proves the point that history can be either boring or interesting, depending solely on how it is taught.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 29, 2014)

If you liked anything about The Da Vinci Code (I think American English would capitalize the word "of" for some stupid reason or another, like the word "von"), then I highly recommend the vastly superior Foucalt's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. It manages to be factual in its major assertions. Be warned: The first quarter of the book is slow going, but then the rest just flies along. 

I think it's hilarious that a majority of the one-star reviews on Amazon reveal that they just could not get through it. 

And although I didn't think it was written above anyone's head, a lot of the on-star reviews also reveal that some folks just lacked the vocabulary to understand it. "Dadgummit! Why'd he use all them long words? It's laahk he thinks he's smart er sumthin'!"


----------



## Edika (Aug 29, 2014)

I haven't read yet Foucault's Pendulum but it is on my to read list. I wonder what people think of The Name of the Rose. If you take out all the information provided about the sects and persecutions you actually get the movie which I also enjoyed. But all those references, even though they slowed down the pace of the book, were very informative and gave a starting point to search for more information on those times which are usually are just glanced over in school as dark times for Christianity. Now that would make an interesting subject for religion classes.

I would like to make the notion that maybe early Christians they actually knew what the fish symbol meant and were living it up. But since Romans are historically famous for their orgies, they saw that they couldn't beat them in that department and decided to go the opposite way to attract followers. If the main religion is doing what you're doing you must offer a crazier, more repressed alternative to show you mean business. 
Disclaimer: The above is pure speculation to poke fun on Christianity. If it turns out it's true however I take full credit for saying it first hehehe!

Finally if we take into account that eras hygiene a vagina wouldn't only look like a fish. Oh these people how politically incorrect were they!


----------



## Explorer (Aug 29, 2014)

Made me laugh. Poz rep to you, good sir!


----------



## hairychris (Aug 29, 2014)

The Name of The Rose is a fantastic book (EDIT: I've not seen the film, I don't want to!). Agreed that Foucault's Pendulum starts slowly but then gets weird.

Early Christian symbols... IIRC the fish and the Chi Ro were more widely used, thinking back to my Religious Studies lessons. Ichthus in Greek was also an acrostic, so the word for the symbol itself had hidden meaning. The crucifix is much later in usage, as people have already mentioned that it was an execution method that was in relatively common use across the Roman empire. It's one thing that makes me cringe about preachers & apologists who tout the idea that JC's execution was in some way exceptional* - it really wasn't.

Christian persecution... Were early Christians persecuted? Yes and no. AFAIK they weren't institutionally persecuted by the Romans until Constantine's day, when the wrong sort of Christians got it in the neck (Christian sects were fighting amongst themselves from the 100s onwards, so things haven't changed much). However their beliefs did conflict with how the Roman state worked, tied in to the pantheon of Roman gods and the deification of emperors and the worship of Rome itself. Pacifism was also a real problem, as military service was a major part of Roman citizenship. Religion was inherently political.

The Jewish people had a special dispensation for their monotheism, but that ended in 79AD after the Jewish revolt. Christianity, per se, did not have this. The early church split very early on between those who wanted to keep it specifically Jewish, and those who wanted to convert gentiles. A Jewish sect the Romans could ignore as long as it didn't cause any trouble, but one that preached treasonous doctrine (refusing to worship the state, pacifism, etc) would always bring it's members into conflict with the state.

Looking back to JC with the above in mind - if he was crucified he would have been so for sedition against the Roman state, not for blasphemy as a Jew (Jewish authorities wouldn't crucify). The fact that this rings false with the official Christian line on his crucifixion is a whole other story...

* Minus the supernatural stuff, obviously, although there is a long history of sacrificial deities in other cultures.


----------



## hairychris (Aug 29, 2014)

Oh wow, learned something new today. I hadn't realised that certain heresies were mentioned _by name_ in the New Testament.

Nicolaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2


----------

