Final scene of Rooster

[Guest queequeg914]

So we get the "new" Old Man unwrapping the piece of the True Cross- who wrote the note? Since Peter initiated the killing of Axmann, I would assume he also recovered the cross from the office. Why would he feel as though he was like "the romans casting lots for the robes of Christ"? Theologically speaking, those were men who knew nothing of Christ or His importance- to them, he was merely another Jewish criminal-but any group member would know exactly how important the True Cross was, whether they were an Owl or a Rooster. Did the note-writer mean that they weren't taking it seriously enough or that they didn't know what they really had? One of the reasons I'm so intrigued by Millennium is the array of theological references- I have a (fairly useless) degree in Biblical Theology and I'm finding a lot to think about. I've gone through old threads on the Owls/Roosters, and haven't found a ton of discussion on this scene- I might not be looking in the right places- if so, I apologize!

[ethsnafu]

Hi Quee (hope you don't mind a nick-name),

I think you might be reading a little too much into the significance of the note which is understandable as some aspects of Millennium were designed to be ambiguous with certain elements remaining deliberately unexplained. There are occasions where it is clear that a trail of clues has been woven into the narrative in order to explain some of the tacit elements of it and there occasions when we will never know the answer. Of course it seems logical that Peter delivered the cross and the note to the Old Man since we see him with it moments before, I guess it doesn't take a vast amount of deduction to reach the obvious conclusion.

I honestly struggle with the idea that the note implies the group do not afford serious contemplation to the true cross given that we have just spent two episode watching it virtually destroy the group from within and driving member to kill member for it. The note isn't there to depict a serious theological idea it is simply there to represent an analogy that by their actions the Group were no better than the Romans who cast lots for Christ's coat.

Or that's my take on it,

Best wishes,

Eth

[4th Horseman]

Hi Quee (hope you don't mind a nick-name),

I think you might be reading a little too much into the significance of the note which is understandable as some aspects of Millennium were designed to be ambiguous with certain elements remaining deliberately unexplained. There are occasions where it is clear that a trail of clues has been woven into the narrative in order to explain some of the tacit elements of it and there occasions when we will never know the answer. Of course it seems logical that Peter delivered the cross and the note to the Old Man since we see him with it moments before, I guess it doesn't take a vast amount of deduction to reach the obvious conclusion.

I honestly struggle with the idea that the note implies the group do not afford serious contemplation to the true cross given that we have just spent two episode watching it virtually destroy the group from within and driving member to kill member for it. The note isn't there to depict a serious theological idea it is simply there to represent an analogy that by their actions the Group were no better than the Romans who cast lots for Christ's coat.

Or that's my take on it,

Best wishes,

Eth

good point eth...a self-evaluation of the actions needed to acquire what was considered important...remember the legacy of the cross in that any army who went into battle with it in their possession never lost..

4th Horseman

[Guest queequeg914]

I definitely agree that Peter (and the rest of the group) knew exactly how important it was. I just think that such a blatant Biblical reference is significant. But as I've thought about it this morning, I've come to my own conclusion- I had forgotten that the Roman centurions were fulfilling the prophecy of the Old Testament- that the Savior's clothing would be stripped and lots would be cast. (Sorry, my Bible is in the car, I can provide chapter and verse if anyone wishes). Therefore- I think Peter is asking the Old Man if they have just become tools of prophecy themselves. Perhaps he feels they aren't as in control as they wish to believe- maybe they themselves are the pawns carrying it out, rather than the ones orchestrating it.

Or maybe it's just the writers being vague. And I think too much.

[ethsnafu]

Now that's a really interesting muse and one I can certainly accept.

If you recall, 'Old Man I' was notably belligerent about the demarcation within the Group concerning Theology and Science. The charts on his wall indicate he was something of a 'John Dee' figure, schooled in the hermetic arts that forged links between faith and science. Peter on the other hand was certainly more orthodox in his interpretation of Group ideology and was definitely preoccupied with the role of prophecy. His verbose rant to Frank during the Marburg incident depicted how he perceived the pathogen in accordance with Biblical prophecy and The Hand Of Saint Sebastian implied that his theological leanings were even more radical than traditional Rooster orthodoxy.

Given Peter's prophetic propensity I can certainly accept that he used the phrase with the true theological meaning intact.

You've certainly enlightened me to an aspect of Roosters I hadn't considered before,

Many thanks..

Eth

[hippyroo]

I definitely agree that Peter (and the rest of the group) knew exactly how important it was. I just think that such a blatant Biblical reference is significant. But as I've thought about it this morning, I've come to my own conclusion- I had forgotten that the Roman centurions were fulfilling the prophecy of the Old Testament- that the Savior's clothing would be stripped and lots would be cast. (Sorry, my Bible is in the car, I can provide chapter and verse if anyone wishes). Therefore- I think Peter is asking the Old Man if they have just become tools of prophecy themselves. Perhaps he feels they aren't as in control as they wish to believe- maybe they themselves are the pawns carrying it out, rather than the ones orchestrating it.

Or maybe it's just the writers being vague. And I think too much.

What a great observation you bring up. Now I will have to watch those episodes again. I tend to think that your last comment is the closest to the truth. I propose the writers were looking for a way to show that Peter was ashamed and also that he had deep Bible based convictions. Not being Bible scholars themselves, they used a reference without knowing that some would see larger symbolisms or meanings.

Maybe you should start a thread of MLLM vs. Bible theology? I would love to understand more about Samuel who killed or removed Pepper.

Horse, aren't the legends about the "Spear of Destiny" really new age imaginings? Is there anything in real history about armies marching behind the spear?

[4th Horseman]

What a great observation you bring up. Now I will have to watch those episodes again. I tend to think that your last comment is the closest to the truth. I propose the writers were looking for a way to show that Peter was ashamed and also that he had deep Bible based convictions. Not being Bible scholars themselves, they used a reference without knowing that some would see larger symbolisms or meanings.

Maybe you should start a thread of MLLM vs. Bible theology? I would love to understand more about Samuel who killed or removed Pepper.

Horse, aren't the legends about the "Spear of Destiny" really new age imaginings? Is there anything in real history about armies marching behind the spear?

I will have to research it, i was just using what i remembered from the episode when Peter is talking to Lara about its importance. I dont recall off-hand anything Biblical about the authenticity of the subject, but i will have to do some research...there is even some disagreement today whether or not pieces acutally exist...

The Santa Croce Church in Rome, is said to currently house the titulus from the actual cross for nearly 1700 years. A titulus is the headboard above the criminals' heads on a cross, who were put to death by crucifixion, as practiced by the Roman Empire. The titulus from Santa Croce is the one allegedly belonging to Christ's cross, which has been disputed for centuries...let me see what i can remember about this issue, and as a forethought, i apologize to anyone in advance who has any opposing evidence as it has been quite a number of years since i have studied this topic..

There are several key signatures to this issue that seem to point to its authenticity, evidence that possibly suggests that this particular titulus is actually that of Christ's. Number one is the order of languages in which the Roman inscription-which always was used to convey the charge against the criminal being executed-"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is transcribed onto the titulus. Actually, since only a fragment of the headboard remains, this line should be modified to only state "Jesus of Nazareth". In the Bible, this order is written first in Hebrew, Greek, then Latin. This order on the Titulus of Santa Croce is one that violates the order in which the Bible documents the languages as appearing on the headboard. This has an air of credulity because, had the order on the titulus been fabricated, no one would have intentionally produced such a glaringly bad imitation. Consequently, this can only mean one thing, that, were the Santa Croce Titulus really a fabrication, the professional forger would have been duped into copying the contraband order written in the Bible, because it was more accessible. Secondly, because the inscription is written from right to left, it is believed that this was inscribed by a Jewish scholar, as it was the traditional Hebrew writing style of the day, around the date of Christ's crucifixion. Thirdly, casting dubiousness on its falsehood, is the introduction of a specific style of abbreviation on the Titulus of Santa Croce, one that died out from common use at the time after Christ's crucifixion, once more linking the headboard to the official one.

Furthermore, to prove that the titulus belonged to Christ, there is a link between the crucifixion and that part of the cross actually coming to the Roman Empire in the 4th century. According to legend, the titulus was recovered in Rome by Helena, Emperor Constantine's 80-year old mother. Constantine had seized control of the whole Empire when he defeated his arch-nemesis, Emperor Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. The Empire had, up to that point, been ostracized into 4 regions, each governed by 4 different Roman rulers. Constantine, allegedly, had a vision of the Cross in the clouds, before crossing the Milvian Bridge in the battle against Maxentius, which implored him to paint a Chi-Rho symbol-the 1st version of Christianity's symbol-on all his men's shields. Constantine reasoned that Christianity had granted him his victory-he then started to oppress Christianity as the official religion of the Empire. As another part of his ambivalent "conversion" of himself and the entire Empire to Christianity, he procured his mom to bring the relic to 3 parts of the Empire as a rallying point for early Christians to have something palpable to believe in.

There are also, i believe, legitimate connections to the titulus which was carried back by Helena, and the actual titulus of Christ a series coincidences that could only happen during the specific range of the time of Christ. For instance, nowadays, there exists the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, sitting over the location where Christ was crucified, and believed to have been the site of the titulus. In the catacombs beneath this church lie inscriptional records of early pilgrims' journeys to this site-one such from Crusaders, and another from seafarers who make a definite reference to a biblical psalm in giving thanks for their opportunity to worship at the site, believing it to be the exact place containing Christ's relics. This verifies the already historical knowledge of the fact that, in the 1st few centuries of Christianity, there was NEVER any dispute over the actual holy sites. Additionally, there is evidence of Jews building tombs over this same area, even for the ones stigmatized as "criminals", as proven by the finding of a burial box containing a nail through the heel bone of a foot, and Jesus would have been libeled as a "criminal" by the Jews. Another tying of the Santa Croce Titulus to Christ's time is the fact that in the 1400s it was discovered in Helena's "palace"-directly behind Santa Croce-hidden behind a fresco, because Helena is supposed to have taken it, the 3rd fragment of the entire headboard, back with her after discovering the titulus at the previous site of, first, the temple to the Roman god Venus, which was then promptly aborted for Constantine's building of a monumental complex to Christianity, all on the same site. Upon the uncovering of the titulus, again, in the 1400s, El Greco used it in a painting of his, further documenting its validity.

My memory has faded, but i believe that the facts presented above serve as the next best thing towards solid proof of this titulus being that of Christ's: raising the question of a plausible feasibility that the Santa Croce Titulus could be Christ's, through an assemblage of circumstantial facts which, together, conclude quite logically its divine connection.

I would love to hear from others on this subject...

4th Horseman..

[Guest SouthernCelt]

First of all, Mark, you're a better man than I at remembering such details. Do you think I should throw out the three-cross legend that I had in my presentation on the Knights of the Golden Circle (that I sent awhile ago) or would that be too much or too controversial? I don't have the text readily at hand so I can't just do it w/o some research into my archives.

[4th Horseman]

First of all, Mark, you're a better man than I at remembering such details. Do you think I should throw out the three-cross legend that I had in my presentation on the Knights of the Golden Circle (that I sent awhile ago) or would that be too much or too controversial? I don't have the text readily at hand so I can't just do it w/o some research into my archives.

Wayne...yes, bring the 3 cross legend to the table as well. We are all free-thinkers here. In regards to my memory, there are some things in my life that i find absolutely fascinating and get a sort of OCD fixation, reading, studying anything and everything i can get my hands on...the episode made me go back and review what i had stashed away...

4th Horseman..

[Guest queequeg914]

As far as Samuel, my first instinct is that he is an archangel- one of God's chosen- the upper hierarchy of the angels. Samuel, named by St. Gregory, is a guiding angel, one of seven. He is not one of the four main archangels of traditional Christianity, but when the character confronts Pepper, he invokes the names of those angels. (Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel)

There is also an archangel occasionally mentioned as a fourth instead of Uriel- his name is Phanuel (sounds like Samuel!)

Another interpretation could be that Samuel is just a spirit or angel of no particular rank, who is allowed by God to fight against the evils of Satan because Satan has overstepped the boundaries set by the Lord when Lucifer fell from heaven. He derives his power from the invocation of the archangels, and will return to heaven with his task finished.

I love how Millennium portrays angels. In the Bible, they are not pretty, harp-playing, feathery Precious Moments figurines. They are terrifying messengers of God, and when they appear, they usually have to start out by saying "Don't be afraid!". Lara Means' fear of her vision is a fantastic example of how someone in Biblical times would react to the appearance of an angel.

And Biblically, the appearance of an archangel is one of the markers of the end of days- 1 Thessalonians 4:16-

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Innerestin'....