Christ didn't die on the cross...

[Tumblehome]

...he survived the crucifixion and lived the rest of his days in Kashmir.

It's true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm). :)

Officially, the tomb is the burial site of Youza Asaph, a medieval Muslim preacher - but a growing number of people believe that it is in fact the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

No word yet on whether Christians will put Easter on hold until they get all the facts. :rolleyes:

[MG1962]

You are getting confused. That was Robert Plant who went to Kashmir

[Mirrorglass]

...he survived the crucifixion and lived the rest of his days in Kashmir.

Good to know he appreciated quality fabrics.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think Jesus currently works as a metal rocker in Narvik, Norway.

[Sledge]

Jesus was only mostly dead.

[Marduk]

...he survived the crucifixion and lived the rest of his days in Kashmir.

It's true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm). :)



No word yet on whether Christians will put Easter on hold until they get all the facts. :rolleyes:

You blasphemer, he didn't go to Kashmir, I have never heard anything so ridiculous.

he went to Japan
His tomb is still there (http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm)
:p

[Trent Wray]

You blasphemer, he didn't go to Kashmir, I have never heard anything so ridiculous.

he went to Japan
His tomb is still there (http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm)
:p Nailed it (no pun intended). This is one of my favorite legends about Mr. Jesus Miyagi.

[Achán hiNidráne]

No, no, no! Jesus is the night manager of a 7-11 in Oklahoma City.

[Elizabeth I]

No, no, no! Jesus is the night manager of a 7-11 in Oklahoma City.

I thought that was Elvis?

[The Drain]

I'm Jesus, and so is my wife!

(But the Kashmir idea is a nice one - wasn't the claim made quite enthusiastically on UK television a year or two ago?)

[Mirrorglass]

I thought that was Elvis?

Elvis only works tuesdays and fridays.

[Accidental Martyr]

Jesus was only mostly dead.

He got better.

[Trent Wray]

He got better.
Was it due to animated ash?

!*ba-dum-bum*!

Here all night folks!

[Simon39759]

Does anybody knows what the identification is based on?
I know of similarities between Jesus teaching and some Buddhist ones that have left some people to theorize that Jesus did travel to India. But, how did this belief evolve into the identification of this one particular tomb? Is there any kind of actual reasoning behind it?

[Simon39759]

He got better.

Now; that's what I call a dead messiah.

No, no he's stunned.

[Trent Wray]

Does anybody knows what the identification is based on?
I know of similarities between Jesus teaching and some Buddhist ones that have left some people to theorize that Jesus did travel to India. But, how did this belief evolve into the identification of this one particular tomb? Is there any kind of actual reasoning behind it? The link Marduk provided listed the extent I knew about it. I first heard of it off an episode on Discovery/History channel etc. Can't remember the actual series or whether it was a special or just episode specific though. It's not "new" though ...

[Marduk]

Does anybody knows what the identification is based on?
I know of similarities between Jesus teaching and some Buddhist ones that have left some people to theorize that Jesus did travel to India. But, how did this belief evolve into the identification of this one particular tomb? Is there any kind of actual reasoning behind it?

Its supported just as well as the claim that Jesus is the son of an all powerful God
;)

[David Henson]

No word yet on whether Christians will put Easter on hold until they get all the facts.

Well, here are the facts.

Jesus didn't die on a cross, he died on an Hebrew torture stake. The cross didn't enter into Christianity until about the 4th century C.E., popularized at first by Constantine.

But he did die on that stake, and Easter is a pagan cellebration of the goddess of fertility, Astarte (AKA Ishtar etc.) On the alluvial plains of Ur hundreds of years before Christ they would use the phallic symbol the cross, the rabbit and the egg, all symbols of Astarte on vases where the charred bones of children were found. They would dress the selected child in new clothes and sacrifice them in fire to Astarte, and later have an orgy where crossbuns were served.

It was adopted by the apostate Christian church in an attempt to draw in more pagans.

[HansMustermann]

The thing is, though, similarities in teachings are't that uncommon. It's not even surprising considering that the Middle East was a major trade hub since before even written history.

You can find major similarities (though not an exact copy) for example between extremes as distant as Buddhism in the East and the Cynics in Greece. Or there are myths all the way over at the other end of China which may have been imported from Mesopotamia. We have myths and symbols like the Black Sun which travelled again likely from Mesopotamia all the was to Scandinavia. Or another solar symbol, the Swastika (best known unfortunately as the nazi crooked cross) has made its way all the way to Japan in one direction, and again at least as far as the old Norse in the other direction. Etc.

Information and ideas travelled around, without needing a Messiah to personally trek over to bring it first hand.

Plus the proto-indo-european invasion must have been a major... equalizing influence in its own right. Whatever original myths that original tribe had, they were carried all over Europe and half of Asia over time.

[MarkCorrigan]

I thought he fled France with his wife Mary Magdalene.... :p

[Towlie]

Actually, Jesus was under secret observation by aliens bound by the Prime Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Watches_the_Watchers) to not interfere. When he was thought dead and buried in his tomb, an alien probe revealed that he was actually still barely alive. The aliens reasoned that no harm would be done if they secretly rescued him since his tomb was sealed forever (or so they thought), so, figuring that nobody would ever know, they smuggled him out and brought him back to health with advanced alien medical technology.

When his body was discovered missing the next day and rumors of a resurrection began to spread, the aliens panicked and quickly and quietly left Earth, taking Jesus with them. They accelerated to near light speed so that time dilation would put a couple of thousand years between them and the trouble they were in, planning to return and drop Jesus off after the whole nasty incident was long forgotten.

As to what happened when they returned, well, that's still in the future. We'll soon find out though, because they're due back any day now.

[Marduk]

Actually, Jesus was under secret observation by aliens bound by the Prime Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Watches_the_Watchers) to not interfere. When he was thought dead and buried in his tomb, an alien probe revealed that he was actually still barely alive. The aliens reasoned that no harm would be done if they secretly rescued him since his tomb was sealed forever (or so they thought), so, figuring that nobody would ever know, they smuggled him out and brought him back to health with advanced alien medical technology.

When his body was discovered missing the next day and rumors of a resurrection began to spread, the aliens panicked and quickly and quietly left Earth, taking Jesus with them. They accelerated to near light speed so that time dilation would put a couple of thousand years between them and the trouble they were in, planning to return and drop Jesus off after the whole nasty incident was long forgotten.

As to what happened when they returned, well, that's still in the future. We'll soon find out though, because they're due back any day now.

you're a towel
:p

[Tumblehome]

I think Jesus currently works as a metal rocker in Narvik, Norway.

Now; that's what I call a dead messiah.

No, no he's stunned.

Pining for the fjords, no doubt. :)

[Tumblehome]

Does anybody knows what the identification is based on?
I know of similarities between Jesus teaching and some Buddhist ones that have left some people to theorize that Jesus did travel to India. But, how did this belief evolve into the identification of this one particular tomb? Is there any kind of actual reasoning behind it?

As usual, follow the money...

"It's a story spread by local shopkeepers, just because some crazy professor said it was Jesus's tomb. They thought it would be good for business. Tourists would come, after all these years of violence.

[Tumblehome]

I thought that was Elvis?

No, not since he left the building.

[Simon39759]

Pining for the fjords, no doubt. :)

If he wasn't nailed to that cross; he would be pushing up daisies!

[Simon39759]

The article mentioned a professor, so I was wondering if there was any evidence, no matter how weak...

[Tumblehome]

Good to know he appreciated quality fabrics.

:D

"Uh, Mr. Christ, sir, why did you come to Kashmir?"

"For your exquisite sweaters, of course."

"Um...couldn't you just turn your cotton shirt into cashmere? You have the power."

"D'OH!!!"

[Trent Wray]

Well, here are the facts.

Jesus didn't die on a cross, he died on an Hebrew torture stake. The cross didn't enter into Christianity until about the 4th century C.E., popularized at first by Constantine.

But he did die on that stake, and Easter is a pagan cellebration of the goddess of fertility, Astarte (AKA Ishtar etc.) On the alluvial plains of Ur hundreds of years before Christ they would use the phallic symbol the cross, the rabbit and the egg, all symbols of Astarte on vases where the charred bones of children were found. They would dress the selected child in new clothes and sacrifice them in fire to Astarte, and later have an orgy where crossbuns were served.

It was adopted by the apostate Christian church in an attempt to draw in more pagans.So I take it you're a believing Christian? Let me ask you then ... you don't sound like you're one of Constantine's fans. I've previously wondered why Xtians don't equate him in particular with the "little horn" in Daniel and perhaps even the "mark of the beast" being the sign of the cross itself, considering Constantine's complete and utter lordship over the route Christianity was to take as the result of his choices. Honestly, when I first studied up some on Constantine years and years ago, the first thought that came to my mind was him using the sign of the cross to conquer, and that it was the "mark of the beast" that was symbolically mentioned in Revelations.

[Tumblehome]

You are getting confused. That was Robert Plant who went to Kashmir

Funny, I used to consider Plant and his mates gods of a sort.

[Trent Wray]

:D

"Uh, Mr. Christ, sir, why did you come to Kashmir?"

"For your exquisite sweaters, of course."

"Um...couldn't you just turn your cotton shirt into cashmere? You have the power."

"D'OH!!!"
Heretic. Jesus wore only wool from sheep.

[Simon39759]

In the middle eastern sun?
That must have smell nice...

[Tumblehome]

You blasphemer, he didn't go to Kashmir, I have never heard anything so ridiculous.

he went to Japan
His tomb is still there (http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm)
:p


That was his evil twin! He ditched his do-gooder brother in Kashmir and went to Japan for the geishas. It's all explained in Hitachi 3:16.

[Lucian]

That was his evil twin! He ditched his do-gooder brother in Kashmir and went to Japan for the geishas. It's all explained in Hitachi 3:16.

I thought Didymos Thomas was Jesus's twin.

[Tumblehome]

The article mentioned a professor, so I was wondering if there was any evidence, no matter how weak...

I don't know of any other evidence. I did notice that the first name of the real guy buried there was Youza, which a crazy professor with too much hash in him could maybe associate with Yoshua or something.

[Trent Wray]

That was his evil twin! He ditched his do-gooder brother in Kashmir and went to Japan for the geishas. It's all explained in Hitachi 3:16. You can't rely on anything in the book of Hitachi. Didn't you see in the news that it was recalled?

[Tumblehome]

I thought Didymos Thomas was Jesus's twin.

Then Jesus must have had two twins. Yet another miracle!

[Lucian]

Then Jesus must have had two twins. Yet another miracle!

Good twin, evil twin, so-so twin.

[Tumblehome]

The cross didn't enter into Christianity until about the 4th century C.E., popularized at first by Constantine.

Doesn't the bible mention a cross? Or was that another edit of God's inerrant word by fallible man?

[Tumblehome]

You can't rely on anything in the book of Hitachi. Didn't you see in the news that it was recalled?

Ah yes, the pages kept sticking, if I remember.

[David Henson]

Doesn't the bible mention a cross? Or was that another edit of God's inerrant word by fallible man?

There are some irresponsible translations which translate stauros as cross. The trouble is that the stauros had many shapes, a single upright piece of wood, a T shape, an X shape etc. The word xylon is used as well, which, unlike the stauros, can only be translated as one piece of upright timber.

In the book of Ezekiel the women weep for the pagan God Tammuz, who was the originator of the t shaped cross that is used in apostate Xianity today. They carved his dungy idol into the temple, much to God's disgust. That symbol was most likely the phallic symbol the cross.

[Trent Wray]

There are some irresponsible translations which translate stauros as cross. The trouble is that the stauros had many shapes, a single upright piece of wood, a T shape, an X shape etc. The word xylon is used as well, which, unlike the stauros, can only be translated as one piece of upright timber.

In the book of Ezekiel the women weep for the pagan God Tammuz, who was the originator of the t shaped cross that is used in apostate Xianity today. They carved his dungy idol into the temple, much to God's disgust. That symbol was most likely the phallic symbol the cross. What is "true Xtianity" then? If it is going to be a detailed answer, you might want to start a new thread, or perhaps answer in this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088&page=137) (this seems to be the thread most dedicated to those who know true Xtianity).

[David Henson]

What is "true Xtianity" then? If it is going to be a detailed answer, you might want to start a new thread, or perhaps answer in this thread here (this seems to be the thread most dedicated to those who know true Xtianity).

[Laughs] Whoa, you didn't even give me the chance to use the phrase! Practically there is no such thing as true Xianity (or Christianity). Ideally it would be those that follow the teachings of Christ. Religion is a nasty business. There has never been a religion that could remain true even unto itself. The Jews, with Jehovah right among them were rebellious and as Paul rightly foretold the true teachings would be turned away for myth / fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

As the new kid on the block I don't feel particularly comfortable jumping into a discussion on "true Xtianity" especially when those who supposedly "know" 'true Christianity' are usually the last ones you are going to get an accurate and unbiased or well informed opinion from.

[Trent Wray]

[Laughs] Whoa, you didn't even give me the chance to use the phrase! Practically there is no such thing as true Xianity (or Christianity). Ideally it would be those that follow the teachings of Christ. Religion is a nasty business. There has never been a religion that could remain true even unto itself. The Jews, with Jehovah right among them were rebellious and as Paul rightly foretold the true teachings would be turned away for myth / fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

As the new kid on the block I don't feel particularly comfortable jumping into a discussion on "true Xtianity" especially when those who supposedly "know" 'true Christianity' are usually the last ones you are going to get an accurate and unbiased or well informed opinion from. :)

Well, I don't claim to know true Xtianity. So if I gave you that impression, sorry ;). I think you are going to find that even though, on this forum, that even atheists are versed in concepts of the various faiths and religions, and don't mind discussing various aspects of them. Don't assume though, just because one is versed, that they are an adherent to the faith or something. For example, I could talk at length with you about Enochian tradition and the Watcher interpretations of scripture, etc and so forth. I have my own interpretations of the scriptures, both New and OT as I've read the bible. If I mention them, I'm not claiming to understand the true faith :). There is a difference. I'm looking at them as a book I've read and tried to understand. I'm not clinging to them and labeling others who view them differently in any way shape or form. Does that make sense?

So when you throw out the term "apostate" I'm assuming you have an idea of what you believe the opposite to be :). Are you familiar with the True Scotsman fallacy? It is one I think that is an easy trap to fall into. I can understand if you don't want to go there immediately:) but just so you know ... if you do end up talking from that point of view, you can expect to be asked for proof or have that fallacy point out to you. I was assuming that is where you were going, but I wasn't to assume fully without asking you first. :) Welcome btw! I'm new blood here too!

[David Henson]

:)

Well, I don't claim to know true Xtianity. So if I gave you that impression, sorry ;). I think you are going to find that even though, on this forum, that even atheists are versed in concepts of the various faiths and religions, and don't mind discussing various aspects of them. Don't assume though, just because one is versed, that they are an adherent to the faith or something. For example, I could talk at length with you about Enochian tradition and the Watcher interpretations of scripture, etc and so forth. I have my own interpretations of the scriptures, both New and OT as I've read the bible. If I mention them, I'm not claiming to understand the true faith :). There is a difference. I'm looking at them as a book I've read and tried to understand. I'm not clinging to them and labeling others who view them differently in any way shape or form. Does that make sense?

Absolutely. This ain't my first rodeo. :cool:

So when you throw out the term "apostate" I'm assuming you have an idea of what you believe the opposite to be :). Are you familiar with the True Scotsman fallacy? It is one I think that is an easy trap to fall into. I can understand if you don't want to go there immediately:) but just so you know ... if you do end up talking from that point of view, you can expect to be asked for proof or have that fallacy point out to you. I was assuming that is where you were going, but I wasn't to assume fully without asking you first. :) Welcome btw! I'm new blood here too!

Nearly 2,000 posts and still new blood?! Thanks for the welcome, you seem like a thoughtful and articulate bloke. As for being challenged on my statements and beliefs . . . I wouldn't have it any other way.

The Pathway Machine - A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://thedaystar.webs.com/)

[Trent Wray]

Nearly 2,000 posts and still new blood?! Thanks for the welcome, you seem like a thoughtful and articulate bloke. As for being challenged on my statements and beliefs . . . I wouldn't have it any other way. Yeah I guess I have posted quite a bit :)

The Pathway Machine - A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://thedaystar.webs.com/)I'm thinking my response to this is going to take place in your other thread .... *heads over there* ;)

[Tumblehome]

There are some irresponsible translations which translate stauros as cross. The trouble is that the stauros had many shapes, a single upright piece of wood, a T shape, an X shape etc. The word xylon is used as well, which, unlike the stauros, can only be translated as one piece of upright timber.

In the book of Ezekiel the women weep for the pagan God Tammuz, who was the originator of the t shaped cross that is used in apostate Xianity today. They carved his dungy idol into the temple, much to God's disgust. That symbol was most likely the phallic symbol the cross.

Thanks for that info. I'm a little wiser about it now, but it also points up one of the main problems I have with the bible. So much of it depends on interpretations of translations of interpretations of translations of...

How can anyone know what the original meant?

[Andrew Wiggin]

So, I've read irish legends involving the exploits of one 'Fingal the Giant'. There's a place on the coast said to be made by him, and possibly also his final resting place. The second 'Hellboy' movie worked it up as being the resting place of the 'golden army' of the elves. Does any of this prove the existence of Fingal?

Similarly, how does the existance of a tomb prove that it is the resting place of a legendary person, or that that person existed? Even additional workups in later myths don't add to the proof, just the legend. Jesus-like figures existed in the mythology previous to jesus: the stuff about mithras and astarte is similar, and I don't hear anyone speculating that this is the true tomb of Mithras.

A

[!Kaggen]

Funny, I used to consider Plant and his mates gods of a sort.

Blasphemer :eek:
Led Zeppelin is GOD

[HansMustermann]

Stake, huh? My word, we must have been this close to having the goatse as a holy icon ;)

[Moss]

I'm getting Holy Something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail) vibes here...

[Kapyong]

Gday,

The cross didn't enter into Christianity until about the 4th century C.E., popularized at first by Constantine.

Rubbish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito


K.

[dafydd]

I thought he fled France with his wife Mary Magdalene.... :p

I thought that he went to Glastonbury and became a hippy.

[dafydd]

Blasphemer :eek:
Led Zeppelin is GOD

In your dreams,they were one of the most overated bands who ever stepped on a stage,and a bunch of plagiarists to boot.I saw them at the Bath festival in 1970 and they were awful.Johnny Winter wiped the floor with them later that same day.

[Foolmewunz]

In your dreams,they were one of the most overated bands who ever stepped on a stage,and a bunch of plagiarists to boot.I saw them at the Bath festival in 1970 and they were awful.Johnny Winter wiped the floor with them later that same day.

Thank you. In a thread about fantasies, a little bit of reality. :D

[!Kaggen]

In your dreams,they were one of the most overated bands who ever stepped on a stage,and a bunch of plagiarists to boot.I saw them at the Bath festival in 1970 and they were awful.Johnny Winter wiped the floor with them later that same day.

God always needs a few detractors, it comes with the territory.:D


Ok, I am willing to concede Mr. Winter is the fallen angel and blues is his invention :p

[dafydd]

If Zep is God,then why does the creator have a voice like a petulant child screaming for a lollipop,as Plant was wont to do?

[David Henson]

Thanks for that info. I'm a little wiser about it now, but it also points up one of the main problems I have with the bible. So much of it depends on interpretations of translations of interpretations of translations of...

How can anyone know what the original meant?

Thats life. Though the word of God, as it was given to the inspired writers of the Bible, is infallible, the translations weren't given under translation. At the same time the word is remarkably preserved. A study was done in which a chapter of Isaiah was tested to see how it had changed in 1,000 years and there was three letters added where there was a copyist mistake. The three letters made up the word "light" which didn't change the meaning of the text.

How do you know what the original meant? You investigate it. Compare translations, examine the original language.

[David Henson]

Gday,



Rubbish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito


K.

Your answer is a link? Did you write that? No. Well, I'm not going to read it. If I wanted to know what wikipedia had to say about it I would have went there in the first place.

[dafydd]

Thats life. Though the word of God, as it was given to the inspired writers of the Bible, is infallible, the translations weren't given under translation. At the same time the word is remarkably preserved. A study was done in which a chapter of Isaiah was tested to see how it had changed in 1,000 years and there was three letters added where there was a copyist mistake. The three letters made up the word "light" which didn't change the meaning of the text.

How do you know what the original meant? You investigate it. Compare translations, examine the original language.

The word of god is infallible? How do you know that? Isaiah was called that because one eye was 'igher than the other.

[!Kaggen]

If Zep is God,then why does the creator have a voice like a petulant child screaming for a lollipop,as Plant was wont to do?

I heard its something about being a little child to enter the kingdom;)

[dafydd]

"O Come,let us sing unto the Lord:let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation" Psalms 95:1

[Simon39759]

I don't know of any other evidence. I did notice that the first name of the real guy buried there was Youza, which a crazy professor with too much hash in him could maybe associate with Yoshua or something.

Yep; the professor was probably of the belief that Jesus got his teachings from India and had already decided that he went back there after the Gospels' events.
He then encountered a vaguely similar name and decided: "Meh... close enough".

That's how I see it...

[P.J. Denyer]

If Zep is God,then why does the creator have a voice like a petulant child screaming for a lollipop,as Plant was wont to do?

I'm sorry, have you read the Old Testament? It's one long hissy fit.... Seems to fit perfectly to me! :D

[Belz...]

Jesus was only mostly dead.

Considering his works, I'm not too sure he was ever that alive to start with.

[biomorph]

Your answer is a link? Did you write that? No. Well, I'm not going to read it. If I wanted to know what wikipedia had to say about it I would have went there in the first place.


Maybe you might have gone there in the first place, lol;

Crucifixion was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.[2][3] It was also used as a form of execution in Japan, of both criminals and Christians.


from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion)

[Mirrorglass]

I think David probably meant that in the early years of christianity, the cross was not a symbol associated with the religion. Sure, Jesus was (supposedly) nailed to a cross, but for understandable reasons, his early followers didn't consider it a thing to remember him by. The most important early symbol of christianity was the fish thingy.

Oh, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm no expert on history.

[David Henson]

I think David probably meant that in the early years of christianity, the cross was not a symbol associated with the religion. Sure, Jesus was (supposedly) nailed to a cross, but for understandable reasons, his early followers didn't consider it a thing to remember him by. The most important early symbol of christianity was the fish thingy.

Oh, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm no expert on history.

Linguistically, prophetically, historically and biblically it is impossible that Jesus died on a cross. Medically it is unlikely.

[Mirrorglass]

Linguistically, prophetically, historically and biblically it is impossible that Jesus died on a cross. Medically it is unlikely.

The story states he was hung there for a while, then stabbed through the heart. Seems medically sound to me.

I'm not touching the historic aspect of Jesus, but I'm pretty sure there's fair documentation of some people being crucified.

And you're gonna have to explain how something is "linguistically, prophetically and biblically" impossible. :D

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I think David probably meant that in the early years of christianity, the cross was not a symbol associated with the religion. Sure, Jesus was (supposedly) nailed to a cross, but for understandable reasons, his early followers didn't consider it a thing to remember him by. The most important early symbol of christianity was the fish thingy.

Oh, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm no expert on history.


References to the cross are found as early as 2nd century, but yes, the earliest references are to the Tau form.

But the Christian cross arose long before Constantine.


Minucius Felix, ch. XXIX :
Late 2nd.

“... For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. ... Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it."


Tertullian, early 3rd, called Christians "crucis religiosi" meaning "devotees of the cross", and he distinguishes the cross from the stake :
Apololgy, ch. XVI.

"... Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us. If you offer homage to a piece of wood at all, it matters little what it is like when the substance is the same: it is of no consequence the form, if you have the very body of the god. And yet how far does the Athenian Pallas differ from the stock of the cross, or the Pharian Ceres as she is put up uncarved to sale, a mere rough stake and piece of shapeless wood? Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross; we render our adoration, if you will have it so, to a god entire and complete. 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 all 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. "


He also refers to making the sign of the cross :
De Corona, ch. III

"At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign"

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Linguistically, prophetically, historically and biblically it is impossible that Jesus died on a cross.

What on earth does that mean ?
How can an event be 'linguistically' impossible ?
Or 'prophetically' ?

What is your point please ?



K.

[Mirrorglass]

Gday,


References to the cross are found as early as 2nd century, but yes, the earliest references are to the Tau form.

But the Christian cross arose long before Constantine.

*snip*



Thanks for the clarification, that was pretty interesting. Would you mind pointing to your source, though? Unless you actually have the books at home, of course. :D

[Tumblehome]

Blasphemer :eek:
Led Zeppelin is GOD

:) I guess once a god, always a god. But like all other gods, they've evolved. Unlike other gods, they've aged quite a bit.;)

In your dreams,they were one of the most overated bands who ever stepped on a stage,and a bunch of plagiarists to boot.I saw them at the Bath festival in 1970 and they were awful.Johnny Winter wiped the floor with them later that same day.

Yeah, they weren't a live group at all. My brother-in-law, a confirmed Led Zep junkie, saw them twice live and they were terrible both times. And the movie they made in the 70's of their concert footage was excruciating. But to me, the music on their records was classic, especially the arrangements.

[Tumblehome]

Yep; the professor was probably of the belief that Jesus got his teachings from India and had already decided that he went back there after the Gospels' events.
He then encountered a vaguely similar name and decided: "Meh... close enough".

That's how I see it...

That makes sense. Also, Youza might even be the local linguistic equivalent of Yoshua, but that's just a wild guess.

[HansMustermann]

Tle linguistics are far from clear, actually.

1. Even crucifixion as in nailing someone to a bit of wood, actually usually involved a vertical pole. See, they usually left the vertical poles there fixed solidly into the ground, and the condemned would just carry the short horizontal beam to be attached. Much less work that way.

Also, sometimes they just tied and nailed the wrists to the vertical pole instead, above the victim's head. It's actually one of the few forms which reliably kills by asphixiation as soon as you can no longer support yourself. (By pushing your legs against nails driven through bone. Those guys really knew how to party.)

So just because in one place the word used is that for vertical pole, it really doesn't immediately mean "stake".

2. While early crucifixion _could_ also mean impaling, the later version meant exactly one thing. And with impaling there would be no need for either of the two versions of the coup de grace before taking them down. Especially the version applied to the two other guys crucified with Jesus is consistent with the one used for crucifixion.

But at any rate, they did apply a coup de grace before taking them down. Especially if you take the bible as literal truth, there is no getting around the fact that they couldn't take Jesus down before making sure he's dead. It means a means of execution which would not by itself cause internal bleeding or any kind of damage expected to be guaranteed lethal.

Impaling just isn't it. Just pulling the stake out would release the pressure on the internal wounds and be lethal very quickly. You don't need an extra spear wound to kill.

3. We have at least one mention of people being taken off crosses in the area, and apparently one survived. If you know how that's possible for impaling, I'm all ears.

4. We have another skeleton, from roughly the same era and place which had been crucified, and even still has a nail through the heel bone, giving us some idea of how it was done. The punishment really is documented in that area.

5. The Jews seem to have preferred the stoning for, well, just about everything. It's not only consistent with the old testament commandments, but also with the story in Acts. I'm not sure where you got the idea of a "jewish torture stake" from, really.

6. And it gets clearer when you consider _why_ they used stoning. The rationale was that since no individual stone was lethal, none of the people involved had violated "thou shalt not kill." Impaling someone doesn't fit that philosophy at all.

7. Especially if you take the bible as literal, it was a case that fell squarely under the jurisdiction of Pilate, not of the Jewish authorities. Pilate would apply the Roman punishment for rebellion and for non-citizens, which was in fact crucifixion. (And if he decided to go with a Jewish one, why not pick stoning?)

8. Dismissing the symbolism of the cross as just phalic (but somehow a stake isn't???) is glossing over such aspects of its being the deeper and more recognizable symbol of Roman oppression. It was the far more offensive punishment usually reserved to slaves, and a symbol easily recognizable by anyone throughout the Empire. Nailing a free citizen would be an _outrage_, and for example Spartacus used that to try to cause the Romans to leave their fortified position and attack. The symbolism of that being done to the very son of God, was far more powerful than any regional associations with Ishtar, sorry.

9. Not to mention that the rosette was a more usual and recognizable symbol of Ishtar, if that had been the purpose. If you wanted to give a message to her followers, why not use her _main_ symbol, you know?

10. Blaming it on just Constantine is silly and inaccurate. While Constantine may have allowed and apropriated the symbol of the cross, the symbol pushed by Constantine himself was actually the Chi-Ro labarum.

[Bill Thompson]

Either way, here is his final fate:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171398

[!Kaggen]

:) I guess once a god, always a god. But like all other gods, they've evolved. Unlike other gods, they've aged quite a bit.;)



Yeah, they weren't a live group at all. My brother-in-law, a confirmed Led Zep junkie, saw them twice live and they were terrible both times. And the movie they made in the 70's of their concert footage was excruciating. But to me, the music on their records was classic, especially the arrangements.

Gods that don't age :eye-poppi
Evidence please:D

"The song remains the same" is a great example of God in action, "excruciating" for us mere mortals ;)

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Thanks for the clarification, that was pretty interesting. Would you mind pointing to your source, though?

Pardon?
I DID give the sources :
Minucius Felix - ch. XXIX.
Tertullian - Apology, ch. XVI.; De Corona, ch. III

Do you have trouble reading English?
Are you glasses broken?
Or what?


Unless you actually have the books at home, of course. :D

Yes, I do have the books at home, and on my hard drive, and they are available online too.

That's your real point, isn't it?

That I got them from the internet, or shock, horror - even worse - wikipedia !

Because the internet, especially wikipedia, is always wrong on everything, isn't it Mirrorglass ?

Are you actually trying to pretend there are false copies of Minicius Felix and Tertullian all over the 'net?


In summary -
I checked the facts, YOU didn't.

But now you have the damned cheek to doubt my sources!
Without ever checking the works yourself.


What IS your point, if you have one?


K.

[Tumblehome]

Gods that don't age :eye-poppi
Evidence please:D

Look at a picture of Christ made in medieval times, then look at a picture of him made recently. In both, he's about thirty years of age.

I rest my case.:cool::p

"The song remains the same" is a great example of God in action, "excruciating" for us mere mortals ;)

:D

Okay, you got me with that one, so let me clarify. When I say their records were great, that's only their first four. After that, they started believing their own press and gave in to weakness and self-indulgence.

Just like the Greek gods, come to think of it. Coincidence? Or not! ;)

[!Kaggen]

Look at a picture of Christ made in medieval times, then look at a picture of him made recently. In both, he's about thirty years of age.

I rest my case.:cool::p

Can't argue with that logic. :eye-poppi



:D

Okay, you got me with that one, so let me clarify. When I say their records were great, that's only their first four. After that, they started believing their own press and gave in to weakness and self-indulgence.

Just like the Greek gods, come to think of it. Coincidence? Or not! ;)


Power eventually corrupts and that is why we end up crucifying the gods.
In this case not buying their cr@p records. ;)

[Mirrorglass]

Gday,



Pardon?
I DID give the sources :
Minucius Felix - ch. XXIX.
Tertullian - Apology, ch. XVI.; De Corona, ch. III

Do you have trouble reading English?
Are you glasses broken?
Or what?




Yes, I do have the books at home, and on my hard drive, and they are available online too.

That's your real point, isn't it?

That I got them from the internet, or shock, horror - even worse - wikipedia !

Because the internet, especially wikipedia, is always wrong on everything, isn't it Mirrorglass ?

Are you actually trying to pretend there are false copies of Minicius Felix and Tertullian all over the 'net?


In summary -
I checked the facts, YOU didn't.

But now you have the damned cheek to doubt my sources!
Without ever checking the works yourself.


What IS your point, if you have one?


K.

My, aren't we righteously indignated.

I wasn't saying I don't believe your quotations are correct, just asking that you point me towards a place where I can check them. What you gave me was some names of books nearly 2000 years old. As I don't know where those books are located, I can't check the originals. So I expected you could point to a scholar or a website that will confirm that the quotations indeed come from those books.

You see, on the internet anyone can write anything. For all I know, you could have made up those texts. I'm not saying you did, but I do want to see your sources.

I probably could find those sources with enough googling, sure. But since you already have, it's common courtesy to link to them.

[Damien Evans]

In your dreams,they were one of the most overated bands who ever stepped on a stage,and a bunch of plagiarists to boot.I saw them at the Bath festival in 1970 and they were awful.Johnny Winter wiped the floor with them later that same day.

* Damien Evans marks dafydd on his list of people with no taste.

[!Kaggen]

* Damien Evans;5770300 marks dafydd on his list of people with no taste.

:dig:

[tsig]

Linguistically, prophetically, historically and biblically it is impossible that Jesus died on a cross. Medically it is unlikely.

Crucifixion didn't kill people? Boy the Romans sure had it wrong.

[Trent Wray]

Yes but the medical evidence speaks for itself. After examining Christ's body, which was found in .... um .... wait, when was it found to be examined medically?

[HansMustermann]

Crucifixion didn't kill people? Boy the Romans sure had it wrong.

Crucifixion, depending on how it's done, can... well, just create extreme pain and a severe risk of infection from the wounds, and that's about it. The move from nailing someone to a vertical pole and nailing them to a T may have been exactly to that end: the former kills by suffocation as soon as they can't support themselves any more, the latter prolongs the agony indefinitely.

Of course, if you tie someone to a piece of wood (even without the nails and the scourging) and leave them up there for days, they'll eventually die of _something_. Even if it's dehydration.

But since they didn't always have the time or inclination to guard someone until they die there, they were already quite used to applying a coup de grace before going home. Jesus supposedly got poked in the heart with a spear.

[dafydd]

:) I guess once a god, always a god. But like all other gods, they've evolved. Unlike other gods, they've aged quite a bit.;)



Yeah, they weren't a live group at all. My brother-in-law, a confirmed Led Zep junkie, saw them twice live and they were terrible both times. And the movie they made in the 70's of their concert footage was excruciating. But to me, the music on their records was classic, especially the arrangements.

That was down to John Paul Jones,he was the arranger.I never rated Page,he was a good studio musician but his solos never went anywhere.I would have been more impressed if they had given credit to the composers that they stole from.

[dafydd]

* Damien Evans;5770300 marks dafydd on his list of people with no taste.

No taste?I have the good taste not to like a bombastic,breast-beating British Cock Rock group. Take a look at my avatar.The Captain had more talent and originality in his liitle finger than Zep put together.

[dafydd]

Lol,I just noticed Damien's avatar.He accuses me of having no taste! Blind Guardian,I ask you!

[!Kaggen]

That was down to John Paul Jones,he was the arranger.I never rated Page,he was a good studio musician but his solos never went anywhere.I would have been more impressed if they had given credit to the composers that they stole from.

What has this do do with Christ not dying on the cross?
Please stop derailing this thread :D

[David Henson]

Crucifixion didn't kill people? Boy the Romans sure had it wrong.

I didn't say that, did I.

[Mirrorglass]

Linguistically, prophetically, historically and biblically it is impossible that Jesus died on a cross. Medically it is unlikely.
Bolding mine.

Please elaborate on the bolded statement. And the others too.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

My, aren't we righteously indignated.

Because I saw thru your ignorant lies.


I wasn't saying I don't believe your quotations are correct, just asking that you point me towards a place where I can check them.

Bollocks.
You clearly implied I must be wrong because I got it from the internet - that's exactly what your comment about 'or do you have the books at home' comment meant.


What you gave me was some names of books nearly 2000 years old. As I don't know where those books are located, I can't check the originals. So I expected you could point to a scholar or a website that will confirm that the quotations indeed come from those books.

You've had DAYS to check.
You chose NOT to.
You have no interest in checking the source.


You see, on the internet anyone can write anything. For all I know, you could have made up those texts. I'm not saying you did, but I do want to see your sources.

I gave the sources.
But you refused to check them.
Repeatedly.


I probably could find those sources with enough googling, sure.


Yes, you COULD have easily done so, and you know how to do it.
But you repeatedly refuse to do so, even though you've just admitted you know exactly how to find them.

You are not the slightest bit interested in the the sources, or checking the facts.

You're just an ignorant kid who thinks doubting something makes you look smart.



But since you already have, it's common courtesy to link to them.

Wrong again.

Like I already told you - I have these books here on my shelf and here on my HDD - I did NOT use links. But you just cannot accept that can you? You KNOW I must be wrong because I MUST have got it from the internet, and the internet is always wrong.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and you feel free to lie to hide your ignorance.

Shameful.


K.

[Mirrorglass]

Gday,

Because I saw thru your ignorant lies.

Bollocks.
You clearly implied I must be wrong because I got it from the internet - that's exactly what your comment about 'or do you have the books at home' comment meant.


So I posted ignorant lies and clearly implied you must be wrong. Let's take a look at my post:

Thanks for the clarification, that was pretty interesting. Would you mind pointing to your source, though? Unless you actually have the books at home, of course. :D

First sentence, I thank you and commend your post. Second sentence, I ask for the source. Third sentence, I imply that if you don't have access to a website with the books, I don't expect you to link to one. Which of those sentences contains the "ignorant lie" you referred to? Also, does that really look to you like I'm "clearly implying you must be wrong because you got it from the internet"? I assure you, that implication was something you invented yourself.

To interpret that as a personal attack against you takes a real stretch of imagination, especially since I've at no point made any claims that your facts aren't correct. Sure, the post could be interpreted as being sarcastic, but that's the wrong interpretation.


You've had DAYS to check.
You chose NOT to.
You have no interest in checking the source.

I gave the sources.
But you refused to check them.
Repeatedly.

Yes, you COULD have easily done so, and you know how to do it.
But you repeatedly refuse to do so, even though you've just admitted you know exactly how to find them.


You gave me the names of some very old manuscripts. I noticed that your quotations of said manuscripts were in modern English, so I assume someone must have translated them. Yet you did not provide the translator. That's something I consider of importance when judging whether or not the quotation is correct.

Yes, I could go and search for myself. But I wouldn't know if I found the same source you did. Anyway, if someone asks me to provide sources for something I quote, I give the link, and don't blow up on their face. I find that leads to much more fruitful conversations.


You are not the slightest bit interested in the the sources, or checking the facts.

You're just an ignorant kid who thinks doubting something makes you look smart.


Mind the insults, would you?

Anyway, I am interested in the sources. That's why I asked you to point me towards them.


Wrong again.

Like I already told you - I have these books here on my shelf and here on my HDD - I did NOT use links. But you just cannot accept that can you? You KNOW I must be wrong because I MUST have got it from the internet, and the internet is always wrong.

Surely you don't claim to have the actual 2nd century original manuscript in your bookshelf? What you have is a book written in English that contains a translation of a 2nd century manuscript. I'd like to know the name and author of that book, so I may check it, should I wish to.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and you feel free to lie to hide your ignorance.

Shameful.

K.

Please do point out where I lied. Otherwise that's just a pointless insult. Well, it's a pointless insult, anyway, but if I actually lied, it is half-justified.

In conclusion, I don't see why you are so angry. I already said I don't doubt your information; I believe it's true. But I want to know where you got it anyway.

[HansMustermann]

Guys, please calm down. I really don't see how asking for a link constitutes a personal attack.

But if it helps, the texts are available online, e.g., at
http://www.tertullian.org/

For the paragraph quoted, the Apologeticum is the relevant text, you can start at
http://www.tertullian.org/works/apologeticum.htm
and pick a translation to your liking. E.g.,
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/mayor_apologeticum/mayor_apologeticum_07translation.htm
Or if you prefer the original Latin, or even photocopies of manuscripts, it's there too.

Ditto for De Corona Militis:
http://www.tertullian.org/works/de_corona.htm

For M. Minucius Felix, an original latin text can be found for example here:
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/minucius.html
Or a translation again on tertullian.org:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-34.htm#P5713_906729

[Tumblehome]

Thanks for posting those links, HM.

And what's with the hard feelings here, peeps? When I bought this thread, the package clearly stated "Light-hearted thread, good for a few chuckles, with special bonus: Led Zeppelin debate!" We're making undead Jesus cry.

[Tumblehome]

That was down to John Paul Jones,he was the arranger.I never rated Page,he was a good studio musician but his solos never went anywhere.I would have been more impressed if they had given credit to the composers that they stole from.

If John Paul Jones arranged How Many More Times (last song, first album), he deserves an award of some kind. And he was by far the best musician. His bass line in Ramble On should be cast in gold, IMNSHO.

Agree about Page, not a good soloist (kinda bad even in places) but that didn't bother me. A song doesn't need a flashy solo to be good. I liked the rhythm he played, and the sounds he got out of his guitar seemed to be just right for the songs.

I think every blues-based rock band back then, including the Stones, was accused of ripping off other musicians, especially the old blues guys. I think it was accepted that you could rework old riffs, which seems natural when the inspiration for your own music is those old songs. But there's a fine line between homage and ripping off, and no doubt some went over the line. I can't say if Zep was one of those. They copied some old blues tunes which were credited to the original writers (Willie Dixon is one I can recall), and they recorded several old blues songs that were in the public domain. Other than that, maybe they did and I'm not aware of it.

Now, like !Kaggen says, stop derailing this thread! :D

[Andrew Wiggin]

I think David probably meant that in the early years of christianity, the cross was not a symbol associated with the religion. Sure, Jesus was (supposedly) nailed to a cross, but for understandable reasons, his early followers didn't consider it a thing to remember him by. The most important early symbol of christianity was the fish thingy.

Oh, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm no expert on history.

Would have simplified things if they'd nailed his hypothetical ass to a fish. Not as effective though.

A

[Damien Evans]

Lol,I just noticed Damien's avatar.He accuses me of having no taste! Blind Guardian,I ask you!

Better Blind Guardian than Captain Beefheart.:p

o9chQnUjnYk
















Ok, I know about 95% of you will disagree with me on that.

[Mirrorglass]

I apologize for my part of the argument. It was childish of me, and off topic. I'd be grateful if the mods removed the posts where I argued with Kapyong.

[ixolite]

What is "true Xtianity" then?
The Jehova's Witnesses version of course. :D

[Towlie]

What is "true Xtianity" then?An oxymoron?

[Kapyong]

I apologize for my part of the argument. It was childish of me, and off topic. I'd be grateful if the mods removed the posts where I argued with Kapyong.

Thank you, well done :-)
I did go off a bit too.

K.

[Minarvia]

The story states he was hung there for a while, then stabbed through the heart. Seems medically sound to me.

I'm not touching the historic aspect of Jesus, but I'm pretty sure there's fair documentation of some people being crucified.

And you're gonna have to explain how something is "linguistically, prophetically and biblically" impossible. :D

David Henson, are you going to answer this? I'm truly interested in what you mean by that. Please explain.

[edge]

I think David probably meant that in the early years of christianity, the cross was not a symbol associated with the religion. Sure, Jesus was (supposedly) nailed to a cross, but for understandable reasons, his early followers didn't consider it a thing to remember him by. The most important early symbol of christianity was the fish thingy.

Oh, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm no expert on history.

I could tell...

[edge]

Crucifixion, depending on how it's done, can... well, just create extreme pain and a severe risk of infection from the wounds, and that's about it. The move from nailing someone to a vertical pole and nailing them to a T may have been exactly to that end: the former kills by suffocation as soon as they can't support themselves any more, the latter prolongs the agony indefinitely.

Of course, if you tie someone to a piece of wood (even without the nails and the scourging) and leave them up there for days, they'll eventually die of _something_. Even if it's dehydration.

But since they didn't always have the time or inclination to guard someone until they die there, they were already quite used to applying a coup de grace before going home. Jesus supposedly got poked in the heart with a spear.

Yep and probably through the liver first, especially because of the direction of the thrust, just the liver would be enough..
Don't forget breaking the legs too.

[Tumblehome]

I apologize for my part of the argument. It was childish of me, and off topic. I'd be grateful if the mods removed the posts where I argued with Kapyong.

Thank you, well done :-)
I did go off a bit too.

:grouphug5

[Simon39759]

Yep and probably through the liver first, especially because of the direction of the thrust, just the liver would be enough..
Don't forget breaking the legs too.
immho
But Jesus' legs were (according to the myth) not broken; that was, IMHO, the point of the story...

[Minarvia]

Yes but the medical evidence speaks for itself. After examining Christ's body, which was found in .... um .... wait, when was it found to be examined medically?

Ah, Trent, ya big dope, he rose from the dead and later went...um...to Heaven. Yeah. To Heaven.

[edge]

immho
But Jesus' legs were (according to the myth) not broken; that was, IMHO, the point of the story...

That's right and was prophesied but most others weren’t so lucky especially the two next to him and probably a multitude of others that died that way.

I missed the prank on the forum what was it?

[Drewbot]

Who is the Jesus fellow?

[Minarvia]

I missed the prank on the forum what was it?

I did too, darn it! Someone PLEASE tell us! Wasn't it something about JREF deleting posts and PM's or something?

[Bill Thompson]

Jesus was eaten.

This explains everything.

[Drewbot]

Yep and probably through the liver first, especially because of the direction of the thrust, just the liver would be enough..


Obviously they missed.

[Kapyong]

I did too, darn it! Someone PLEASE tell us! Wasn't it something about JREF deleting posts and PM's or something?

Yes,
can someone give us a clue what happened ?


I.

[edge]

Obviously they missed.

Show me where it says that since the Romans were thorough?
You seem to be the only ones that disagree with history as written by the Hebrews and Romans?
Ignorance is bliss I guess.

[edge]

Who is the Jesus fellow?

I was right!

[David Henson]

David Henson, are you going to answer this? I'm truly interested in what you mean by that. Please explain.

I didn't see any of this until now. I will go back and take a look.

[dafydd]

If John Paul Jones arranged How Many More Times (last song, first album), he deserves an award of some kind. And he was by far the best musician. His bass line in Ramble On should be cast in gold, IMNSHO.

Agree about Page, not a good soloist (kinda bad even in places) but that didn't bother me. A song doesn't need a flashy solo to be good. I liked the rhythm he played, and the sounds he got out of his guitar seemed to be just right for the songs.

I think every blues-based rock band back then, including the Stones, was accused of ripping off other musicians, especially the old blues guys. I think it was accepted that you could rework old riffs, which seems natural when the inspiration for your own music is those old songs. But there's a fine line between homage and ripping off, and no doubt some went over the line. I can't say if Zep was one of those. They copied some old blues tunes which were credited to the original writers (Willie Dixon is one I can recall), and they recorded several old blues songs that were in the public domain. Other than that, maybe they did and I'm not aware of it.

Now, like !Kaggen says, stop derailing this thread! :D

The Stones made sure that the composers got the royalties,they tracked down Mississippi Fred McDowell when they recorded You Gotta Move,for example.Willie Dixon was dead by the time the court case over Whole Lotta Love was settled,but his widow got the money.Not only did they murder the song,but Plant and Page had the cheek to claim that they wrote it,They even went back in a time machine and wrote Gallow's Pole,an old folk song.They stole the melody for Stairway To Heaven from an instrumental named Taurus by the band Spirit,released 1968 and known to be in Plant's record collection.There is a difference between being influenced and downright theft.More below.

http://www.artofthemix.org/FindAMix/getcontents2.aspx?strmixId=89189

http://www.furious.com/PERFECT/yardbirds2.html

[David Henson]

The story states he was hung there for a while, then stabbed through the heart. Seems medically sound to me.

I'm not touching the historic aspect of Jesus, but I'm pretty sure there's fair documentation of some people being crucified.

Of course there is, that was never in question. People were crucified by the Romans using various shaped instruments. X, T, and upright single poles among them. The point is that Jesus died on what is called a stauros, which according to that word could have been any of those shapes, but it is also called in the Bible a xylon which could only have been a single upright pole.

And you're gonna have to explain how something is "linguistically, prophetically and biblically" impossible. :D

Linguistically is explained above. Prophetically referrs to the breaking of the legs. It was a Jewish tradition that if someone was being put to death on the Hebrew torture stake (Greek xylon) near a Sabbath day their legs were were broken so that the weight of their body would sufficate them thus hurrying the proccess along for the sake of getting it done before the Sabbath. Had Jesus been nailed to a cross the outsretched arms would have supported his weight and prevented suffication, thus prophetically he couldn't have been hung upon a cross because it would have been pointless to mention it. This is also why medically it would have been impossible.

It would have Been biblically impossible because, even though the Romans were the authority by which the Jewish religious leaders used to get it done, they would have never allowed Jesus, a Jew, to be hung on the Roman phalic symbol the cross, which was actually first used by the pagan Dumuzi, a Sumerian king deified upon his death and worshipped by the women in Ezekiel 8:1-14. He is thought to be the originator of the cross from the mystic Tau, his initial. If, in the unlikely event that Jesus had suffered such a humiliation at the hands of the Romans through the Jewish religious leaders the Bible would have most definately included it without the mention of the Hebrew torture stake having been used instead.

Historically it would have been at least unlikely if not impossible because the Cross didn't start appearing in Christian tradition until long after Jesus' death. Popularized by the Emperor Constantine.

[Mirrorglass]

Of course there is, that was never in question. People were crucified by the Romans using various shaped instruments. X, T, and upright single poles among them. The point is that Jesus died on what is called a stauros, which according to that word could have been any of those shapes, but it is also called in the Bible a xylon which could only have been a single upright pole.



Linguistically is explained above. Prophetically referrs to the breaking of the legs. It was a Jewish tradition that if someone was being put to death on the Hebrew torture stake (Greek xylon) near a Sabbath day their legs were were broken so that the weight of their body would sufficate them thus hurrying the proccess along for the sake of getting it done before the Sabbath. Had Jesus been nailed to a cross the outsretched arms would have supported his weight and prevented suffication, thus prophetically he couldn't have been hung upon a cross because it would have been pointless to mention it. This is also why medically it would have been impossible.

It would have Been biblically impossible because, even though the Romans were the authority by which the Jewish religious leaders used to get it done, they would have never allowed Jesus, a Jew, to be hung on the Roman phalic symbol the cross, which was actually first used by the pagan Dumuzi, a Sumerian king deified upon his death and worshipped by the women in Ezekiel 8:1-14. He is thought to be the originator of the cross from the mystic Tau, his initial. If, in the unlikely event that Jesus had suffered such a humiliation at the hands of the Romans through the Jewish religious leaders the Bible would have most definately included it without the mention of the Hebrew torture stake having been used instead.

Historically it would have been at least unlikely if not impossible because the Cross didn't start appearing in Christian tradition until long after Jesus' death. Popularized by the Emperor Constantine.

So in essence, you use the word "impossible" differently from most people. Fair enough.

ETA: Oh, and this is probably in vain, but.. any references for any of that? Other than the bible?

[David Henson]

So in essence, you use the word "impossible" differently from most people. Fair enough.

ETA: Oh, and this is probably in vain, but.. any references for any of that? Other than the bible?

The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896) "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape." - Pp. 23, 24

"Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship." - Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

"The shape of the two-beamed cross had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.

"It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device." - The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.

"The cross in the form of the 'Crux Ansata' . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called 'the Sign of Life.'" - The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.

"Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata is found side by side with the phallus.”—A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17

"These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, [See book], and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar's heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is []; but the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the 'Solar Wheel'. It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshipper, and would not enter the ‘Church’ till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens." - The Companion Bible, Appendix No. 162

"There was no use of the crucifix and no material representation of the cross." - History of the Christian Church (New York, 1897), J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.

[Simon39759]

Of course there is, that was never in question. People were crucified by the Romans using various shaped instruments. X, T, and upright single poles among them. The point is that Jesus died on what is called a stauros, which according to that word could have been any of those shapes, but it is also called in the Bible a xylon which could only have been a single upright pole.

Linguistically is explained above.

Ok; that seems to make sense.
Of course, one could think that the writers made a mistake or, because these details varied from place to place, described the crucifixions as they happen in their place rather than the first century CE variant. Or that, when they use the term xylon; they only refer to the part of the cross they are interested in (the "pole" part of the cross), a synecdoche, if you will.


Prophetically referrs to the breaking of the legs. It was a Jewish tradition that if someone was being put to death on the Hebrew torture stake (Greek xylon)[/quote]

I was under the impression that the Jewish did not practice crucification. That the only accepted method of execution were stoning; burning; decapitation and strangulation, crucification being a Roman introduction...



near a Sabbath day their legs were were broken so that the weight of their body would sufficate them thus hurrying the proccess along for the sake of getting it done before the Sabbath. Had Jesus been nailed to a cross the outsretched arms would have supported his weight and prevented suffication, thus prophetically he couldn't have been hung upon a cross because it would have been pointless to mention it. This is also why medically it would have been impossible.

I disagree with that. It is my understanding that if you hang from your outstretched arms; the weight of the rest of your body is going to pull down on your torso. To rise your chest; you'd have to lift your whole body. A victim in this position would quickly exhaust himself and suffocate.
Then again, I have never crucified anybody so I could not check for myself; but it does make sense.
I still don't get how that is prophetic.



It would have Been biblically impossible because, even though the Romans were the authority by which the Jewish religious leaders used to get it done, they would have never allowed Jesus, a Jew, to be hung on the Roman phalic symbol the cross, which was actually first used by the pagan Dumuzi, a Sumerian king deified upon his death and worshipped by the women in Ezekiel 8:1-14. He is thought to be the originator of the cross from the mystic Tau, his initial. If, in the unlikely event that Jesus had suffered such a humiliation at the hands of the Romans through the Jewish religious leaders the Bible would have most definately included it without the mention of the Hebrew torture stake having been used instead.

They might have been pissed. So what? It's not like the Roman seemed to have cared much.
In fact; they had been ruling the region for about 3 decades by that time, presumably, they introduced the Roman practice of crucifixion with them. So, even if the Jewish elder were upset at first, at the time of Jesus' execution; they had three decades to get used to it...



Historically it would have been at least unlikely if not impossible because the Cross didn't start appearing in Christian tradition until long after Jesus' death. Popularized by the Emperor Constantine.

What?
No; it just mean that crucifixion was not considered a symbol of Christianity at the beginning. After all, it was the method of execution associated with criminals and traitor, not something you would pick as the symbol of your religion.
So, it does make a lot of sense than when Constantine abolished the use of the cross as a method of execution; it would free it from some of its stigma and allows it to become a symbol...

The most we can say, in my opinion, is that we don't really know what type of cross was used... I consider that a bit of a detail.

[!Kaggen]

The Stones made sure that the composers got the royalties,they tracked down Mississippi Fred McDowell when they recorded You Gotta Move,for example.Willie Dixon was dead by the time the court case over Whole Lotta Love was settled,but his widow got the money.Not only did they murder the song,but Plant and Page had the cheek to claim that they wrote it,They even went back in a time machine and wrote Gallow's Pole,an old folk song.They stole the melody for Stairway To Heaven from an instrumental named Taurus by the band Spirit,released 1968 and known to be in Plant's record collection.There is a difference between being influenced and downright theft.More below.

http://www.artofthemix.org/FindAMix/getcontents2.aspx?strmixId=89189

http://www.furious.com/PERFECT/yardbirds2.html

Re-incarnation ;)

[Minarvia]

Of course there is, that was never in question. People were crucified by the Romans using various shaped instruments. X, T, and upright single poles among them. The point is that Jesus died on what is called a stauros, which according to that word could have been any of those shapes, but it is also called in the Bible a xylon which could only have been a single upright pole.


Do you mean he was actually impaled? No sarcasm, I really wonder. If you are saying a single upright pole than he would have to have been impaled, ala. Vlad Tepes Dracul?

Still, equally horrible!

[David Henson]

Do you mean he was actually impaled? No sarcasm, I really wonder. If you are saying a single upright pole than he would have to have been impaled, ala. Vlad Tepes Dracul?

Still, equally horrible!

To impale means to fasten to a stake or pole. Dead or alive. In Bible times the Assyrians used the sort of impalement you are talking about where the nude body is ran through with a pointed stake, but that isn't the only method of fastening to the stake.

Jewish law dictated that the person convicted of a crime punishable by death was first killed by stoning or beheading and then hung upon a stake or pole as an example. Joshua 10:26

[Simon39759]

To impale means to fasten to a stake or pole. Dead or alive. In Bible times the Assyrians used the sort of impalement you are talking about where the nude body is ran through with a pointed stake, but that isn't the only method of fastening to the stake.

Jewish law dictated that the person convicted of a crime punishable by death was first killed by stoning or beheading and then hung upon a stake or pole as an example. Joshua 10:26


I am pretty sure you have this in reverse.
Impalement means driving a stake through the body.

The term crucifixion could refer to impalement rather than the "classic" nailed to a tree, but not the other way around.

[HansMustermann]

To impale means to fasten to a stake or pole. Dead or alive. In Bible times the Assyrians used the sort of impalement you are talking about where the nude body is ran through with a pointed stake, but that isn't the only method of fastening to the stake.

Jewish law dictated that the person convicted of a crime punishable by death was first killed by stoning or beheading and then hung upon a stake or pole as an example. Joshua 10:26

1. That's not what impaling means.

2. There's a difference between putting a corpse on a pole as a warning, and Jesus dying on a pole like you claimed. You know, the whole aspect of the before vs after death?

3. Nailing someone to a vertical pole _is_ a method of crucifixion. (Admittedly not one you'd expect to still find in use in the first century AD, but it's not impossible.)

[The Drain]

'Impalement' here is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

My understanding of what I've been reading in this thread is that crucifixion on a single pole means being tied or nailed to an upright post (presumably by your hands way above your head) and your feet similarly affixed below - and the victim has the awful and constant choice of taking your weight on your wrists or ankles, until exhaustion.

Does the use of the term 'single pole' or 'torture stake' neccesarily have to mean 'impalement'?

[Bill Thompson]

Did Jesus become a zombie?

[Minarvia]

'Impalement' here is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

My understanding of what I've been reading in this thread is that crucifixion on a single pole means being tied or nailed to an upright post (presumably by your hands way above your head) and your feet similarly affixed below - and the victim has the awful and constant choice of taking your weight on your wrists or ankles, until exhaustion.

Does the use of the term 'single pole' or 'torture stake' neccesarily have to mean 'impalement'?

No, it just came to my mind. I've never seen depictions of crucifixion only using a single pole. It did not occur to me. My mistake.

[Iamme]

Linguistically, prophetically, historically and biblically it is impossible that Jesus died on a cross. Medically it is unlikely.

That sounds profound. Ph.D -like. Although I did hear all those xxxxxly's I think in the land of Oz, right after Dorothy landed on the witch of the East.

Explain each one of your ly's you list as to why it is...well, you do not say improbable, you say impossible. And how is it medically unlikely to die on a cross. I think there have been far easier ways people have died, like on that tv show '1000 Ways to Die'(or whatever that show is called).

[The Drain]

Iamme, I think David H gave a fair go at explaining that claim of his in a couple of subsequent posts above.

[David Henson]

I am pretty sure you have this in reverse.
Impalement means driving a stake through the body.

The term crucifixion could refer to impalement rather than the "classic" nailed to a tree, but not the other way around.

I'm afraid you have it wrong. Throughout history the impalement usually consisted of fastening to a pole, stake or tree, although it could mean to pierce through as well. Even a dictionary will tell you that it means to pierce through or fix to something. The historical examples I gave were all fastened to a pole rather than pierced through with a stake.

[David Henson]

'Impalement' here is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

My understanding of what I've been reading in this thread is that crucifixion on a single pole means being tied or nailed to an upright post (presumably by your hands way above your head) and your feet similarly affixed below - and the victim has the awful and constant choice of taking your weight on your wrists or ankles, until exhaustion.

Does the use of the term 'single pole' or 'torture stake' neccesarily have to mean 'impalement'?

I don't know what you mean. They wouldn't unless someone were fastened or pierced through with a stake. It doesn't have to be a pole, pale or stake, either, it could be a rock like Prometheus is sometimes presented as being fastened to a rock.

[Minarvia]

Sorry I brought it up! I hadn't heard of crucifixion by a single pole before. Sorry! Jesus. :)

[David Henson]

Did Jesus become a zombie?

No. A Zombie is actually someone who is drugged to the point where primitive means can't recognize signs of life. The victim is usually burried alive. In pop culture a zombie is the walking dead. Jesus was neither of these. He died and after 3 days returned in another body similar to his previous one. This is why some of the people couldn't recognize him. His body was taken away just as Moses' body had been, to prevent obvious abuses such as robbing or worshipping it.

Angels, when dealing with men often had to take the form of humans. Jesus couldn't have sacrificed his body and then taken it back.

[Simon39759]

You sure about that?
I know that the word does come from the latin for stake.

Hum; the dictionaries (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impalement) I consulted (http://books.google.com/books?id=sJRLxGmZ3iEC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=impalement+oxford+dictionary&source=bl&ots=L6iMx_jK73&sig=20exh0tqIYCVFYAROcBts-WqP8g&hl=fr&ei=Lg-4S5vlMoOQNdqOqOIL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false) seem to agree with me.

[Minarvia]

No. A Zombie is actually someone who is drugged to the point where primitive means can't recognize signs of life. The victim is usually burried alive. In pop culture a zombie is the walking dead. Jesus was neither of these. He did and after 3 days returned in another body similar to his previous one. This is why some of the people couldn't recognize him. His body was taken away just as Moses' body had been, to prevent obvious abuses such as robbing or worshipping it.

Angels, when dealing with men often had to take the form of humans. Jesus couldn't have sacrificed his body and then taken it back.

Well, he would have had to, wouldn't he, so that Thomas could stick his finger or hand in the wound in his side? So I still don't understand that he would change into an unrecognizable form yet retain a wound to prove to his friends that it was indeed him. This has always been confusing to me.

[Simon39759]

Story telling device to emphasize the magical aspect of the encounter?

[David Henson]

Ok; that seems to make sense.
Of course, one could think that the writers made a mistake or, because these details varied from place to place, described the crucifixions as they happen in their place rather than the first century CE variant. Or that, when they use the term xylon; they only refer to the part of the cross they are interested in (the "pole" part of the cross), a synecdoche, if you will.

You were right. Sorry, my mistake. I was confusing stauros for the Latin crux. The Greek stauros could only have been a single pole, but it was later translated into the Latin crux which is the one that could be an upright pole or a X or T shape, etc. Crux ansata, crux simplex. Thanks for pointing out my error.

I was under the impression that the Jewish did not practice crucification. That the only accepted method of execution were stoning; burning; decapitation and strangulation, crucification being a Roman introduction...

Right again. My mistake, sorry. Man, I just can't handle such a volume of posts to respond to, especially in th wee hours of the morn. They would impale or burn someone after they had beheaded or stoned them. It was the Romans who would break the legs.

[David Henson]

You sure about that?
I know that the word does come from the latin for stake.

Hum; the dictionaries (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impalement) I consulted (http://books.google.com/books?id=sJRLxGmZ3iEC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=impalement+oxford+dictionary&source=bl&ots=L6iMx_jK73&sig=20exh0tqIYCVFYAROcBts-WqP8g&hl=fr&ei=Lg-4S5vlMoOQNdqOqOIL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false) seem to agree with me.

I checked those out and I can see that they only give a half of what the one I checked out gave. impale (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale)

It could be a case of impalement being used in that way whereas in the past it had a broader meaning.

[Darth Rotor]

David:

Fascinating.

You posit that there were three various techniques that the Romans were known to have used to crucify, or hang up on a bit of wood, persons they were weary of. This is a plausibe enough position, given the sources you cited. You thus conclude that Jesus could NOT have been subjected to one of them ... did you bring your bias with you?

You haven't much to support that position, the singularly-important-to-you non-occurrence.

You early on conflated the uncertainty of hanging by a spike, or three, Constantine's choice of symbol -- cross rather than fish, or whatever.

I will guess that you are aware that the cross has also been taken as a variation on the sword as a symbol. James Carroll wrote a delightful book on the topic.

Happy Easter to you.

DR

[Towlie]

Jesus was neither of these. He died and after 3 days returned in another body similar to his previous one. This is why some of the people couldn't recognize him. His body was taken away just as Moses' body had been, to prevent obvious abuses such as robbing or worshipping it.

Angels, when dealing with men often had to take the form of humans. Jesus couldn't have sacrificed his body and then taken it back.I'd say your post #137 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5788153&postcount=137) makes almost, but not quite, as much sense as my post #21 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5764946&postcount=21).

[Lucian]

I checked those out and I can see that they only give a half of what the one I checked out gave. impale (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale)

It could be a case of impalement being used in that way whereas in the past it had a broader meaning.

"Impale" did once have a broader meaning. It could, for instance, mean "To enclose with pales, stakes, or posts; to surround with a palisade; to fence in. Now rare" (Oxford English Dictionary), but not when it comes to a means of punishment or execution. Then it always means to pierce through: "To thrust a pointed stake through the body of, as a form of torture or capital punishment; to fix upon a stake thrust up through the body" (OED).

[HansMustermann]

Let's recap, though: so your point is that Jesus was still nailed to a bit o' wood, as expected, except it was a crux simplex (just a vertical pole) instead of a crux immissa (the + shape usually associated with christianity) or crux commissa (the T shape that early christians seemed to favour)?

It's possible, but it doesn't make that much of a difference, does it?

That said, stauros itself didn't seem to necessarily mean just a beam. Just as "crux" had to be qualified as "crux simplex" if you want to explicitly mean a single vertical pole for crucifixion, by the first century "stauros" too had to be qualified as "monos stauros", i.e., single beam, if you wanted to mean the same thing. While _originally_ "stauros" meant just a vertical pole, by the first century CE it was commonly in use to mean a cross just as well and we have it used in several places for that.

Plus, Greek was almost a second lingua franca in the Roman Empire all along, and arguably the dominant language in the eastern part outside of the ruling class. And some of those guys were helenized jews. They _knew_ Greek. The idea that some native Greek speakers would be confused by "stauros" and only mistakenly go for a T sign, is kinda silly.

I.e., there is nothing irresponsible about translating "stauros" as "crux", basically. The two were really equivalent in meaning for the means of execution.

Xylon in turn basically means "timber", but by implication it was also used for things like "club" or "tree" or "stick". I.e., probably the most accurate translation to convey all that ambiguity in a modern word would be "wood". It didn't automatically mean a single straight beam, e.g., in its use as "tree" you wouldn't expect a tree to look like just a straight pole.

And there is no indication that it had to mean "vertical beam" even when used as "beam". E.g., in Ezra 6:11 most likely what was meant was hanging someone from timber pulled from their own house, and the Septuagint uses the same word "xylon" for that timber. I.e., likely what was meant was constructing some form of gallows, not necessarily hanging someone from just a straight vertical beam.

So to get back to the Bible, what we have there is more likely a way to say that Jesus was nailed to wood, or metaphorically to a tree. It doesn't have to mean "stake".

So basically we're kinda back to square one. We don't know what kind of a crux or stauros it was. Sure, there is nothing to definitely prove that they meant a crux immissa. But then it seems to me like equal conceit to proclaim that it absolutely was a crux simplex, because that's really equally unsupported.

[David Henson]

"Impale" did once have a broader meaning. It could, for instance, mean "To enclose with pales, stakes, or posts; to surround with a palisade; to fence in. Now rare" (Oxford English Dictionary), but not when it comes to a means of punishment or execution. Then it always means to pierce through: "To thrust a pointed stake through the body of, as a form of torture or capital punishment; to fix upon a stake thrust up through the body" (OED).

Then how do you explain the historical references I gave as impalement being fastened to a stake from Livy and others including an illustration of an impaled man fastened rather than pierced through on a stake from the 1500's from a book on what impalement was all about?

[HansMustermann]

Did they actually call it "impaling"? That people got nailed to vertical poles now and then, is very much a given. The question is only whatever gave you the idea that that's impaling.

[David Henson]

Did they actually call it "impaling"? That people got nailed to vertical poles now and then, is very much a given. The question is only whatever gave you the idea that that's impaling.

I provided a reference to a book on impalement from the 1500's which had an illustration in it of a man fastened to a pole as an example of what impalement was at that point in time. I provided the example of Prometheus as fastened to a rock mass in some cases and in others fastened to a pole.

[jsfisher]

Then how do you explain the historical references I gave as impalement being fastened to a stake from Livy and others including an illustration of an impaled man fastened rather than pierced through on a stake from the 1500's from a book on what impalement was all about?

I provided a reference to a book on impalement from the 1500's which had an illustration in it of a man fastened to a pole as an example of what impalement was at that point in time. I provided the example of Prometheus as fastened to a rock mass in some cases and in others fastened to a pole.


Did you? I saw where you said you were referring to some unnamed book, but I never saw an actual citation. Can you provide some, please?

[John Jones]

Did you? I say where you said you were referring to some unnamed book, but I never say an actual citation. Can you provide some, please?

I must have missed it too. OTOH, I have become accustomed to his bare assertions.

[Lucian]

I must have missed it too. OTOH, I have become accustomed to his bare assertions.

I didn't see it either. And what language are these books in? Livy obviously wouldn't have been using the English word "impale."

[David Henson]

Did you? I saw where you said you were referring to some unnamed book, but I never saw an actual citation. Can you provide some, please?

De Cruce Liber Primus by Justus Lipsius, page 647 column 2.

[jsfisher]

De Cruce Liber Primus by Justus Lipsius, page 647 column 2.

So your evidence for the meaning of the English word, impalement, is an illustration found in a book written in Latin? Do I have that correct?

[HansMustermann]

Are you aware, though, that

A) Justus Lipsius never called it anything else than crucifixion, what with his writing in Latin and all.

B) Justus Lipsius illustrated _all_ kinds of crucifixion, not just one. Including the one on a crux decussata (X), an Y shaped one, and to a living tree, and a few more.

C) If you're going to base such a categorical pronouncement on just its being illustrated in a book, then I guess the crux immissa (+) wins hands down. Because it's by far the most drawn in that book, a whole three times more than the single beam varieties.

D) he did _not_ say that Jesus was crucified on a pole. On the contrary, in the same book he stated that the Lord's cross was a crux immissa, i.e., the one shaped like a +.

In fact, the kind of cross that Justus Lipsius favoured is the one on page 661, with an extra cross-beam for the feet. And he bases it on the descriptions from Irenaeus and Tertullian, which state that the cross had 5 ends (count them) and included a cross-beam for the feet. ETA: and it was made of 4 pieces of wood, including the inscription above his head.

Now I'm used to cherry-picking, but using a book and author as somehow proof of the exact opposite of what it actually says, is outright dishonest.

[jsfisher]

Now I'm used to cherry-picking, but using a book and author as somehow proof of the exact opposite of what it actually says, is outright dishonest.

Well, so far all he's claimed is that as the source of the impalement usage. I was about ready to declare shenanigans, though, since even that claim is a bit, ummm, misguided considering the citation.

I do not believe De Cruce Liber Primus was his source for information. It looks more like a recitation based on Watchtower Society dogma at its core. That puts it at least two, maybe three levels of indirection way from the claimed reference.

If so, then he's compounded his outright dishonesty a bit.

[Towlie]

No. A Zombie is actually someone who is drugged to the point where primitive means can't recognize signs of life. The victim is usually burried alive. In pop culture a zombie is the walking dead. Jesus was neither of these. He died and after 3 days returned in another body similar to his previous one. This is why some of the people couldn't recognize him.So all this time we were thinking of Night of the Living Dead when we should have been thinking of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. :p

[The Drain]

So all this time we were thinking of Night of the Living Dead when we should have been thinking of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. :p


Brilliant!!

Nominated.

[DOC]

...he survived the crucifixion and lived the rest of his days in Kashmir.

It's true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm). :)



No word yet on whether Christians will put Easter on hold until they get all the facts. :rolleyes:

This is a quote from your site:

"It's a story spread by local shopkeepers, just because some crazy professor said it was Jesus's tomb. They thought it would be good for business. Tourists would come, after all these years of violence.

And then it got into the Lonely Planet, and too many people started coming'.

And the tradition of using the "term" Easter is much ado about nothing:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Resurrection_Sunday

[Tumblehome]

I was Forbidden! from your linked page :(. My gosh, what did I do to deserve that?

But I don't know what you're getting at about using the term Easter. That hasn't been an issue here from what I remember.

[CORed]

What is "true Xtianity" then? If it is going to be a detailed answer, you might want to start a new thread, or perhaps answer in this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088&page=137) (this seems to be the thread most dedicated to those who know true Xtianity).

Well, it seems that just about every religion that advertises itself as Christian, from Catholic to Baptist to Jehova's Witness to Mormon claims to be "true Christianity", so take your pick. Personally, I don't think there's much truth in any of them.

[Simon39759]

Aaah! Doc's spreading! Aim for the head, people, aim for the head!

[Drewbot]

Show me where it says that since the Romans were thorough?
You seem to be the only ones that disagree with history as written by the Hebrews and Romans?
Ignorance is bliss I guess.

IF they stabbed him through the liver he would have died sooner than 43 days later.
IF someone is walking around for 3 to 40 days after the stabbing, and then dies on the 43rd or 44th day, I would guess that they probably stabbed him in the intestines, stomach or some other debilitating location. If it was the heart or liver, I don't think he could have made it 43 or 44 days.
Therefore, I don't think they got him in the liver or heart.

[DOC]

Aaah! Doc's spreading! Aim for the head, people, aim for the head!

A ridiculous post, and more of it's all about the messenger and not the message. If you want to attack me personally at least do it in my Evidence thread in the History and Literature forum.

[Simon39759]

It's called a joke.
It's an intriguing but rewarding process you should look it up.

[RobRoy]

It's called a joke.
It's an intriguing but rewarding process you should look it up.

If it helps, I laughed. Out loud even. One might say that I lol'd. :D

But then I have all the information at hand, so I got it.

[Simon39759]

If it helps, I laughed. Out loud even. One might say that I lol'd. :D

But then I have all the information at hand, so I got it.


Well; then I can ask no more and my task here is done (wrap himself in a cape* and disappear in the stormy night**).


*More like a cheap plastic poncho, or maybe some kind of big-sized garbage bag...

**Actually a rather nice spring early afternoon here with a little breeze and just a few clouds lazying around like idle sheep on the great blue lawn.

[HansMustermann]

IF they stabbed him through the liver he would have died sooner than 43 days later.
IF someone is walking around for 3 to 40 days after the stabbing, and then dies on the 43rd or 44th day, I would guess that they probably stabbed him in the intestines, stomach or some other debilitating location. If it was the heart or liver, I don't think he could have made it 43 or 44 days.
Therefore, I don't think they got him in the liver or heart.

Dammit, people, with zombies you always aim for the head. Always.

And if that soldier had remembered that simple fact, we could have avoided the great zombie plague of Jerusalem. (Matthew 27:52-53.)

[Simon39759]

To his defense, the Roman empire did not (according to scholar Max Brooks that somebody, surely, one day, has or will call one of the the world's greatest historian) encounter and devise its policy against zombie until nearly a century later, during the reign of emperor Hadrian around 121CE.

[Ron_Tomkins]

:D

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Jesuslol.jpg

[Simon39759]

Awesome!

[David Henson]

Well, so far all he's claimed is that as the source of the impalement usage. I was about ready to declare shenanigans, though, since even that claim is a bit, ummm, misguided considering the citation.

I do not believe De Cruce Liber Primus was his source for information. It looks more like a recitation based on Watchtower Society dogma at its core. That puts it at least two, maybe three levels of indirection way from the claimed reference.

If so, then he's compounded his outright dishonesty a bit.

Hang on - I like this one (http://www.agapeacceptance.co.uk/JustusLipsius.html) better.

[Simon39759]

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make but the second set of pictures does contain one annoted "Below page 848: This is impalement" and does, indeed, depict the classical impalement through driving a stake through people...

Not that this particular webpage seems very scholarly... It strikes me more as a piece of anti Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda...

[HansMustermann]

Hang on - I like this one (http://www.agapeacceptance.co.uk/JustusLipsius.html) better.

You may like whichever you wish, but where did he use the word impalement? I just went through the latin text on the page with the illustration so favoured by the JW, and which you provided as a reference for "impalement". To the extent that my very poor Latin knowledge allows, I can find a ton of references to crux in its various cases but nothing that could even remotely be construed as some new verb "to impale" or its derivatives. The "palum" is explained as forming the crux in this usage, but doesn't seem to be used as anything but the noun. I don't see any word which could be construed as "to impale" or "impaled" or anything on that page.

ETA: Just to make it clearer, the word he uses for the actual method of execution is in the phrase "Nor do we doubt that trees served very often for this purpose, particularly in a great number of crucifixions, either pruned lightly and adapted to a cross, or even leafy." The word used there is "cruciandorum", a plural genitive of a derivative of "crucio", in turn a derivative of "crux".

(ETA: Impaling with a leafy tree, though, now that must have been a feat;))

[David Henson]

You may like whichever you wish, but where did he use the word impalement? I just went through the Latin text on the page with the illustration so favoured by the JW, and which you provided as a reference for "impalement". To the extent that my very poor Latin knowledge allows, I can find a ton of references to crux in its various cases but nothing that could even remotely be construed as some new verb "to impale" or its derivatives. The "palum" is explained as forming the crux in this usage, but doesn't seem to be used as anything but the noun. I don't see any word which could be construed as "to impale" or "impaled" or anything on that page.

ETA: Just to make it clearer, the word he uses for the actual method of execution is in the phrase "Nor do we doubt that trees served very often for this purpose, particularly in a great number of crucifixions, either pruned lightly and adapted to a cross, or even leafy." The word used there is "cruciandorum", a plural genitive of a derivative of "crucio", in turn a derivative of "crux".

(ETA: Impaling with a leafy tree, though, now that must have been a feat;))

lets recap my position throughout this thread.

1. Jesus didn't die on a Roman cross, he died on a simple pole.

2. stauros and crux can be used as simple poles or as various forms of "crosses," X, T shaped etc.

3. The Christian Greek scriptures uses the Greek word xylon as the implement used in Jesus death which can only mean simple pole.

4. Impalement means being fastened or fixed to something in addition to being pierced through with it.

So, being crucified is being impaled since one is fastened or fixed to the object, no matter what the shape of the instrument is.

[David Henson]

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make but the second set of pictures does contain one annoted "Below page 848: This is impalement" and does, indeed, depict the classical impalement through driving a stake through people...

Not that this particular webpage seems very scholarly... It strikes me more as a piece of anti Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda...

Yeah, well, its the quickest and easy way to get a bunch of illustrations from that book of various forms of impalement.

[ddt]

4. Impalement means being fastened or fixed to something in addition to being pierced through with it.

So, being crucified is being impaled since one is fastened or fixed to the object, no matter what the shape of the instrument is.

Do you see the part that's missing in your conclusion? I don't hold any hope I can convince you, being ESL, where native English speakers have tried to convince you in vain - but the English word impalement definitely describes something different than crucifixion.

[HansMustermann]

But the problems are with your points 3 and 4, and simply repeating those assertions once more isn't quite cutting it. Namely:

3. Xylon meant timber, but also as in the beams in a gallows, or in a house, and by extension it was routinely used to mean a club, or stick, or pole, or living tree, or a few other things.

4. Please support the assertion that impalement ever meant fixing to a pole. The dictionaries seem to disagree, and the book and illustration you provided as evidence use the Latin verb "crucio", i.e., to crucify, not anything that could be translated as "impale."

[David Henson]

Do you see the part that's missing in your conclusion? I don't hold any hope I can convince you, being ESL, where native English speakers have tried to convince you in vain - but the English word impalement definitely describes something different than crucifixion.

How do you explain that Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale) describes impalement as to fix in an inescapable or helpless position.?

Prometheus (http://ssad.bowdoin.edu:9780/snipsnap/eng242-s05/space/Prometheus+Unbound)

Or the fact, as I mentioned, Prometheus was impaled upon a rock?

ACT I

Scene. - A Ravine of Icy Rocks in the Indian Caucasus. Prometheus is discovered bound to the Precipice. Panthea and Ione are seated at his feet. Time, night. During the Scene, morning slowly breaks.

Impaled in lingering fire: and mighty realms
Float by my feet, like sea-uprooted isles,
Whose sons are kneaded down in common blood
By the red light of their own burning homes. (1.615)

[David Henson]

But the problems are with your points 3 and 4, and simply repeating those assertions once more isn't quite cutting it. Namely:

3. Xylon meant timber, but also as in the beams in a gallows, or in a house, and by extension it was routinely used to mean a club, or stick, or pole, or living tree, or a few other things.

4. Please support the assertion that impalement ever meant fixing to a pole. The dictionaries seem to disagree, and the book and illustration you provided as evidence use the Latin verb "crucio", i.e., to crucify, not anything that could be translated as "impale."

What if you were, in any time from the alleged existance of Ezra or Jesus approximate, in need to construct some sort of device in order to hang a person upon a stake until dead or even after death. Would you go to the trouble of adding that xtra piece or more on there if it wasn't needed?

Ezra 6:31 - And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber [xylon] will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.

Where it says impaled it literally means , "and, impaled, he will be struck upon it."

The Septuagint used the word xylon in translation of the above verse. The same Greek word Luke, Peter and Paul used at Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 / Galatians 3:13 / 1 Peter 2:24.

[ddt]

4. Impalement means being fastened or fixed to something in addition to being pierced through with it. .
So, actually, you meant: "impalement can either mean 'being fastened' or it can mean 'being pierced through'". Why didn't you write that? As you wrote it, it seemed as you meant that both conditions must apply - at least to me. It was highly ambiguous.

How do you explain that Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale) describes impalement as to fix in an inescapable or helpless position.?

Prometheus (http://ssad.bowdoin.edu:9780/snipsnap/eng242-s05/space/Prometheus+Unbound)

Or the fact, as I mentioned, Prometheus was impaled upon a rock?
I concede it can mean that, given your evidence. However, the "piercing through" meaning is the far more popular one. Two out of three results in dictionary.com don't give your meaning; neither does wiktionary.org.

So, if your point is that the cross Christ was affixed to was a simple pole, without a crossbeam, I'd advise you to just write that. If, however, your point of this discussion is to perpetuate re-emerging discussions about the meaning of "impale" and confuse the discussion with ambiguous statements, continue this way.

[David Henson]

So, actually, you meant: "impalement can either mean 'being fastened' or it can mean 'being pierced through'". Why didn't you write that? As you wrote it, it seemed as you meant that both conditions must apply - at least to me. It was highly ambiguous.

I've noticed that on this forum those sorts of mistakes are noticed, whereas on other forums I have posted in the past I would notice them myself later in reviewing my posts.

I concede it can mean that, given your evidence. However, the "piercing through" meaning is the far more popular one. Two out of three results in dictionary.com don't give your meaning; neither does wiktionary.org.

So, if your point is that the cross Christ was affixed to was a simple pole, without a crossbeam, I'd advise you to just write that. If, however, your point of this discussion is to perpetuate re-emerging discussions about the meaning of "impale" and confuse the discussion with ambiguous statements, continue this way.

I thought I had.

[Simon39759]

Yeah, well, its the quickest and easy way to get a bunch of illustrations from that book of various forms of impalement.

Fair enough, but you did not mention the most important of my two points: that the text surrounding the illustrations seemed to contradict your position.



How do you explain that Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impale) describes impalement as to fix in an inescapable or helpless position.?

Metaphorical?
If I say that I am going to be crucified by my boss, I generally don't meant he is going to execute me.



Prometheus (http://ssad.bowdoin.edu:9780/snipsnap/eng242-s05/space/Prometheus+Unbound)

Or the fact, as I mentioned, Prometheus was impaled upon a rock?

ACT I
Scene. - A Ravine of Icy Rocks in the Indian Caucasus. Prometheus is discovered bound to the Precipice. Panthea and Ione are seated at his feet. Time, night. During the Scene, morning slowly breaks.
Impaled in lingering fire: and mighty realms
Float by my feet, like sea-uprooted isles,
Whose sons are kneaded down in common blood
By the red light of their own burning homes. (1.615)

First of all, poesy is all about stretching the language, and Romantic authors like Shelley maybe more than most.
Second, it sounds like poetic license, the expression is impaled in lingering fire; it seems to me to be about the pain Prometheus feels, not the detail of his restraining device...

I am really not convinced. So far you presented illustrations (from a site that disagrees with you) and a verse of Romantic writing, neither of them seem convincing to me...

[jsfisher]

Well, so far all he's claimed is that as the source of the impalement usage. I was about ready to declare shenanigans, though, since even that claim is a bit, ummm, misguided considering the citation.

I do not believe De Cruce Liber Primus was his source for information. It looks more like a recitation based on Watchtower Society dogma at its core. That puts it at least two, maybe three levels of indirection way from the claimed reference.

If so, then he's compounded his outright dishonesty a bit.

Hang on - I like this one (http://www.agapeacceptance.co.uk/JustusLipsius.html) better.


Ah! So I was correct in my "shenanigans" suspicion. You were not completely honest when you claimed De Cruce Liber Primus as your source of information. Your credibility is now somewhat marred.

Your original claims regarding the word, impalement, have been exposed as a failure. Good luck with your back-pedaling.

[jsfisher]

I concede it can mean that, given your evidence.

Before doing so you might want to consult a more highly regarded authority than Merriam-Webster.

The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, has "[t]o transfix upon, or pierce through with, anything pointed" for impale. This is not in full agreement with Merriam-Webster. The OED is also very good about distinguishing those meanings which are figurative in nature, as in "to torment or render helpless as if transfixed". MW makes no such distinctions.

[dafydd]

It's called a joke.
It's an intriguing but rewarding process you should look it up.

Are there any jokes in the bible? Intentional ones,I mean.

[David Henson]

Ah! So I was correct in my "shenanigans" suspicion. You were not completely honest when you claimed De Cruce Liber Primus as your source of information. Your credibility is now somewhat marred.

Your original claims regarding the word, impalement, have been exposed as a failure. Good luck with your back-pedaling.

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I'm not here to impress the impressionable with my credibility, I'm here to establish if Jesus Christ died on a two piece or one piece cross. It doesn't matter to me if Patrick Starfish or Gomer Pyle provided the image of the single upright pole.

The evidence is strongly in favor of him not having died on the traditional two piece cross.

[RobRoy]

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I'm not here to impress the impressionable with my credibility, I'm here to establish if Jesus Christ died on a two piece or one piece cross. It doesn't matter to me if Patrick Starfish or Gomer Pyle provided the image of the single upright pole.

The evidence is strongly in favor of him not having died on the traditional two piece cross.

Question: Why does this matter one way or the other?

There’s limited extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus even existed, much less that he had supernatural powers, or that he was, in fact, God-incarnate. Whether or not the chroniclers got such a small point as one piece of wood or two, in a cross-shape or in an x-shape, seems pretty far removed from some very fundamental questions.

Is it one-hundred angels that dance on the head of a pilum or two-hundred?

[jsfisher]

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I'm not here to impress the impressionable with my credibility, I'm here to establish if Jesus Christ died on a two piece or one piece cross. It doesn't matter to me if Patrick Starfish or Gomer Pyle provided the image of the single upright pole.

The evidence is strongly in favor of him not having died on the traditional two piece cross.

That's all well and good, but in the future when asked to cite your references, please actually cite your references.

Also, please do not dodge the issue, as you are doing above. The issue for this teapotted tempest was your use of the word, impalement. The image doesn't support your contention. So, in addition to citing your references, please also be so kind as to make them relevant to the discussion, not some separate issue.

For that matter, not only does the image not support your misuse of a word, it also does nothing to support your other claim of Jesus' crucifixion on an upright pole. So where does that leave you with respect to your falsely cited reference?

[Simon39759]

Are there any jokes in the bible? Intentional ones,I mean.




Well; there is this scene that springs to mind (in Luke 22:35-38) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:35-38&version=NLT) when Jesus tells his apostle to buy swords and sell their clothing if necessary to do so.
Then an apostle comes back and mention two swords and Jesus gets a bit snippy: "That's enough, he says".
What do you think was the second sword the naked apostle was referring to?


(It probably is not the preferred interpretation, but thinking of it that way makes me happy).

[David Henson]

I am really not convinced. So far you presented illustrations (from a site that disagrees with you) and a verse of Romantic writing, neither of them seem convincing to me...

I think that you are convinced you just don't have the evidence you need to say with absolute certainty so you are sticking with tradition.

For me the evidence is pretty sound that he died on a one piece instrument, but it doesn't really matter if he died on a one piece or two piece instrument, apostate Christianity venerates the Roman cross, which is a pagan phallic symbol of fertility.

[HansMustermann]

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I'm not here to impress the impressionable with my credibility, I'm here to establish if Jesus Christ died on a two piece or one piece cross. It doesn't matter to me if Patrick Starfish or Gomer Pyle provided the image of the single upright pole.

The evidence is strongly in favor of him not having died on the traditional two piece cross.

Well, technically there isn't enough evidence in there that he even existed, much less the exact shape of the cross. The only portions that aren't much later pseudepigraphic fanfic are based on two hallucinations by two people who hadn't actually met Jesus, nor seen the crucifixion anyway: Paul and John (as in Revelation Of).

But if we're to speculate based on a fairy tale -- in much the same way we could speculate about the exact breed of apple that Snow White choked on -- it seems to me like it's not that clear at all.

On one hand, we have a debatable case of Xylon meaning basically anything between a straight piece of wood, to basically anything made of wood at all, to a living tree. (Ironically, the very page you linked to for that illustration, documents the practice of nailing people to actual trees. Hmm.)

On the other hand, we have compelling evidence to the contrary:

1. In such places as John 20:25, they talk about wounds in his hands from the _nails_, note the plural. If Jesus had been nailed in the manner illustrated in that woodcut you linked to, there would only be one nail for both hands.

Not the most conclusive evidence by itself, as the hands could have been nailed separately to the pole. (Same as although the legs are often depicted as nailed together with just one nail, in the one skeleton we have of a crucifixion victim, they were actually nailed separately to the sides of the pole.)

2. In Matthew 27:39, it says they put the accusation above his head, of being the king of the Jews. Now this is kinda troubling. If he were nailed to a single pole like in that illustration, the arms would obscure an "INRI" plaque set above his head. For a crucifixion like that, if you want it to be visible to and readable by bystanders, you'd want to put it above his _hands_. But that's not what the verse says. An inscription nailed above his head would only be visible if it was a crucifixion with the arms wide apart.

3. There's also the whole issue of WTH did Jesus then carry through town.

Sure, the Christian image of him carrying a whole cross is false too. That's not how the Romans did it. The condemned was only carrying the cross-beam, the "patibulum", if one was to be used. Which had evolved from the yoke a condemned slave would wear on the way to his place of the execution. That cross-beam alone weighed a lot.

The idea of making someone who's just been scourged carry either the whole cross or a 10+ ft massive stake like the one in that illustration is kinda ridiculous.

So exactly what did Jesus carry through town? Going by known Roman practice, if he carried anything (as opposed to being in a yoke), it would be a patibulum. But you're telling me that a patibulum wasn't used. So what _did_ he carry?

[David Henson]

Question: Why does this matter one way or the other?

Actually, it only matters if there is a dispute about it. Which there is.

Here is what I think happened. Jesus was nailed, in this sense of the word "impaled; fastened or fixed to" a stake as was the custom of the Romans. The Greek words which were used to describe this were stauros and xylon. Later this was translated into the Latin crux. Constantine took the symbol of the cross which he supposedly saw in the sky going into battle and popularized it into Christianity.

[Trent Wray]

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I'm not here to impress the impressionable with my credibility, I'm here to establish if Jesus Christ died on a two piece or one piece cross. It doesn't matter to me if Patrick Starfish or Gomer Pyle provided the image of the single upright pole.

The evidence is strongly in favor of him not having died on the traditional two piece cross. Hey, easy on Patrick Starfish. Patrick Starfish is irrelevant to this thread :)

Why is it so important to establish how Christ died? Wouldn't it be more relevant whether or not he rose from the dead?

[RobRoy]

Actually, it only matters if there is a dispute about it. Which there is.

Is there?

Hey, easy on Patrick Starfish. Patrick Starfish is irrelevant to this thread :)

Why is it so important to establish how Christ died? Wouldn't it be more relevant whether or not he rose from the dead?

Yeppers, I believe I asked David Henson the same thing, which he hasn't responded to either.

[Simon39759]

I think that you are convinced you just don't have the evidence you need to say with absolute certainty so you are sticking with tradition.

For me the evidence is pretty sound that he died on a one piece instrument, but it doesn't really matter if he died on a one piece or two piece instrument, apostate Christianity venerates the Roman cross, which is a pagan phallic symbol of fertility.


Not really.
Mostly, I don't have any good evidence one way or the other, so I might as well give tradition the benefit of the doubt.

But, while we are on the subject, let me also mention that I don't think we have any good evidence about Jesus' own existence either and that, there too, I give tradition the benefit of the doubt.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, it only matters if there is a dispute about it. Which there is.

Here is what I think happened. Jesus was nailed, in this sense of the word "impaled; fastened or fixed to" a stake as was the custom of the Romans. The Greek words which were used to describe this were stauros and xylon. Later this was translated into the Latin crux. Constantine took the symbol of the cross which he supposedly saw in the sky going into battle and popularized it into Christianity.

Which is actually wrong in several ways. Starting with the fact that the symbol that Constantine ran amok with was the Chi-Ro labarum, not the cross.

You make one of those like this. Take a piece of paper. Draw a big X on it. Now draw a vertical line through the middle of the X, the line must extend a bit above the top of the X. Now turn that vertical line into a P, but the "head" of the P must not touch or intersect the X.

That's Constantine's Chi-Ro Labarum.

The custom of Roman crucifixion was also very far from being just a pole. They had inherited it as just a pole from the Carthaginians, but soon added their own innovations to it, making it more gruesome than ever before. NB: they still occasionally nailed someone to just a pole or a tree, if a more proper implement wasn't available, but it was hardly something you could call _the_ custom.

Also: translating it to crux and crucio it wasn't some late addition, it's how the Romans called it all along, ever since taking the idea from the Carthaginians. As you may have noticed, "crux" doesn't necessarily mean "cross". Nailing someone to just about any piece of wood whatsoever, from pole, to tree, to X, to whatever else was available, was a case of "crucio" and of "crux". Hence it seems to me like it was the only correct translation to Latin.

[David Henson]

On one hand, we have a debatable case of Xylon meaning basically anything between a straight piece of wood, to basically anything made of wood at all, to a living tree. (Ironically, the very page you linked to for that illustration, documents the practice of nailing people to actual trees. Hmm.)

That is what a xylon is, basically wood. Pretty much the same as the classical or Koine Greek stauros.

On the other hand, we have compelling evidence to the contrary:

1. In such places as John 20:25, they talk about wounds in his hands from the _nails_, note the plural. If Jesus had been nailed in the manner illustrated in that woodcut you linked to, there would only be one nail for both hands.

Not the most conclusive evidence by itself, as the hands could have been nailed separately to the pole. (Same as although the legs are often depicted as nailed together with just one nail, in the one skeleton we have of a crucifixion victim, they were actually nailed separately to the sides of the pole.)

Keep in mind, contrary to what seems a need to disagree with everything I say by the skeptics here because they assume that I am a Christian or JW, which I am not, I am only discussing the possibilities with you.

At John 20:25 the plural in the case of the nails could have been in reference to his feet, though in my opinion they are not since in 1968 an excavated tomb North East of Jerusalem from the first century revealed a Jew who was executed by torture stake (xylon) where the nail that was still attached to his ankle was 4.5 inches long. Does that make any difference to you?

For what its worth (almost nothing) The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M’Clintock and Strong, says: "Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen." - Volume*II, page*580.


2. In Matthew 27:39, it says they put the accusation above his head, of being the king of the Jews. Now this is kinda troubling. If he were nailed to a single pole like in that illustration, the arms would obscure an "INRI" plaque set above his head. For a crucifixion like that, if you want it to be visible to and readable by bystanders, you'd want to put it above his _hands_. But that's not what the verse says. An inscription nailed above his head would only be visible if it was a crucifixion with the arms wide apart.

I have personally always thought that this was the most convincing evidence for Jesus having died on a cross, but I have seen illustrations where it being done on a simple tree or post is possible.

3. There's also the whole issue of WTH did Jesus then carry through town.

Sure, the Christian image of him carrying a whole cross is false too. That's not how the Romans did it. The condemned was only carrying the cross-beam, the "patibulum", if one was to be used. Which had evolved from the yoke a condemned slave would wear on the way to his place of the execution. That cross-beam alone weighed a lot.

The idea of making someone who's just been scourged carry either the whole cross or a 10+ ft massive stake like the one in that illustration is kinda ridiculous.

So exactly what did Jesus carry through town? Going by known Roman practice, if he carried anything (as opposed to being in a yoke), it would be a patibulum. But you're telling me that a patibulum wasn't used. So what _did_ he carry?

But that doesn't explain how the stauros and especially xylon would have likely been a single post.

"STAUROS (σταυρός) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256.

Ultimately there is no Scriptural support for Jesus having died on a cross. All this other stuff is secondary.

[David Henson]

That's all well and good, but in the future when asked to cite your references, please actually cite your references.

Also, please do not dodge the issue, as you are doing above. The issue for this teapotted tempest was your use of the word, impalement. The image doesn't support your contention. So, in addition to citing your references, please also be so kind as to make them relevant to the discussion, not some separate issue.

For that matter, not only does the image not support your misuse of a word, it also does nothing to support your other claim of Jesus' crucifixion on an upright pole. So where does that leave you with respect to your falsely cited reference?

The above is my reference to something you said. If someone else gave the same reference it would be exactly the same. Patrick Starfish or the Pope or Richard Dawkins. Doesn't matter. The book I referenced had many pictures of various forms of what I, with the backing of Merriam Webster, call imaplement but can also mean crucifrixion since imaplement, in my opinion, can mean fastened to as in nailed, chained or tied as well as being impaled as the common definition of being pierced through.

[RobRoy]

[snip entire post]

It appears you've managed to attribute quotes to me, when they were said by HansMustermann. Kindly correct this oversight, as it is poor argumentation on a number of levels and confusing to say the least.

[David Henson]

Hey, easy on Patrick Starfish. Patrick Starfish is irrelevant to this thread :)

Why is it so important to establish how Christ died? Wouldn't it be more relevant whether or not he rose from the dead?

It isn't that it is so important it is that it is the subject of this thread.

[David Henson]

Fair enough, but you did not mention the most important of my two points: that the text surrounding the illustrations seemed to contradict your position.

My position is that there are many forms of the cross, including an upright pole. That impalement can apply to being nailed to a crux (in any form) as well as an upright pole. I am testing you all. I am surprised that no one has checked the etymology of the English word impale - all that stuff about poles and pales and to fix.

This is interesting to me because most of you are willing to do a quick check to determine that my sources are not my own and you are willing to check sources, which differs somewhat from other skeptics but you haven't checked that point which you are so sure of due to its present common usage. That intrigues me. Is it possible that, though you doubt the opinion of those who disagree with you (by you I mean skeptics) but not those who agree? This is interesting to me because I usually do the opposite in the case of the latter and take the former for granted.

Metaphorical?
If I say that I am going to be crucified by my boss, I generally don't meant he is going to execute me.

First of all, poesy is all about stretching the language, and Romantic authors like Shelley maybe more than most.
Second, it sounds like poetic license, the expression is impaled in lingering fire; it seems to me to be about the pain Prometheus feels, not the detail of his restraining device...

Okay.

I am really not convinced. So far you presented illustrations (from a site that disagrees with you) and a verse of Romantic writing, neither of them seem convincing to me...

Those were only showing how these words might be used in writing . . . or to confuse you, I'm not sure which and that makes it all the more exciting for me.

[David Henson]

Well; there is this scene that springs to mind (in Luke 22:35-38) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022:35-38&version=NLT) when Jesus tells his apostle to buy swords and sell their clothing if necessary to do so.
Then an apostle comes back and mention two swords and Jesus gets a bit snippy: "That's enough, he says".
What do you think was the second sword the naked apostle was referring to?


(It probably is not the preferred interpretation, but thinking of it that way makes me happy).

EXCELLENT!!

What do you think of the possibility that Jesus was trying to teach them a lesson that the sword isn't meant, in the relatively distant future, as a means of the continuation of his preaching work to after he is gone, by means of them having a sword and Jesus himself not having one in the relatively immediate future of Matthew 26:52 and John 18:10-11?

[HansMustermann]

1. Exactly what you believe in, is kinda secondary. You'll note that I never made any reference at all to your being a JW or anything. We're discussing what's written in there. Who believes what, well, that doesn't change the text.

2. For someone who was appealing to Roman tradition earlier, you now seem in a hurry to dismiss it. The tradition was precisely to have the condemn carry the patibulum, so that seems to me relevant.

3. That the practice of crucifying it with their arms wide open existed at the time, you can see for example in Seneca's "Yonder I see instruments of torture, not indeed of a single kind, but differently contrived by different peoples; some hang their victims with head toward the ground, some impale their private parts, others stretch out their arms on a fork-shaped gibbet; I see cords, I see scourges, and for each separate limb and each joint there is a separate engine of torture!" My emphgasis.

Whether that's actually what was done to the alleged Jesus, now that's a better question. But at the very least the practice did exist in roughly the same time interval as Jesus.

4. It seems to me like you need to make up your mind as to what those words mean. Because there's a difference between arguing "That is what a xylon is, basically wood. Pretty much the same as the classical or Koine Greek stauros." and "STAUROS (σταυρός) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake." In the same message, no less. Either it is basically wood or it is a single pole, not both.

But of course the answer is that the meaning changed. Originally it was just a vertical pole, but by early AD times, it was already a synonim for crux in all respects.

Again it helps if you understand that Roman tradition of carrying the patibulum. The vertical poles were typically already there and fixed into the ground. They were too big and heavy to have one person carry them anyway. Criminals being taken to that vertical pole and nailed was of course not the wrong way to describe it. It just misses the bit that they carried with them, to complete that cross. It's the kind of metaphor, just like the Romans' "arbor infelix" (although it usually was a cross, not literally a tree), that would need no further explanation to someone living at the time and seeing it done all the time.

[David Henson]

It appears you've managed to attribute quotes to me, when they were said by HansMustermann. Kindly correct this oversight, as it is poor argumentation on a number of levels and confusing to say the least.

It was a mistake which has been corrected. Sorry.

[Simon39759]

My position is that there are many forms of the cross, including an upright pole. That impalement can apply to being nailed to a crux (in any form) as well as an upright pole. I am testing you all. I am surprised that no one has checked the etymology of the English word impale - all that stuff about poles and pales and to fix.

The ethymology is pretty straightforward; it comes from the latin word for: stake.
As such, it makes logical sense as meaning, to drive a stake through something. Either through the ground, to bard of a place, or through a person, to be a big meanny.

Both of these have been brought up previously, though.




This is interesting to me because most of you are willing to do a quick check to determine that my sources are not my own and you are willing to check sources, which differs somewhat from other skeptics but you haven't checked that point which you are so sure of due to its present common usage. That intrigues me. Is it possible that, though you doubt the opinion of those who disagree with you (by you I mean skeptics) but not those who agree? This is interesting to me because I usually do the opposite in the case of the latter and take the former for granted.

Not really, I initially corrected what seemed to me like, from the top of my head, like a minor error, more like a you not using the word you meant to use.
When you came back to me, I realized that you actually meant to use the word impale, and that you seemed confident about it.
So I investigated slightly deeper, but the few sources I checked seemed to agree with me rather than you.
You then posted that link and I checked it and it did not seem to say support your point.

I did not investigate much because, to be honest, the subject does not interest me all that much. So far, however, the few sources I looked into appeared to support my initial impression rather than your point and the sources you have brought up, that I also looked at, trying to be open minded, do not convice me, as I mentioned.



Those were only showing how these words might be used in writing . . . or to confuse you, I'm not sure which and that makes it all the more exciting for me.

Yes, using poetry is not really a good example when treating when the literal, technical, definition of a term.
Symbolic, poetic license, bluries (http://www.painexhibit.com/ag504_Sanders) definitions...



EXCELLENT!!

What do you think of the possibility that Jesus was trying to teach them a lesson that the sword isn't meant, in the relatively distant future, as a means of the continuation of his preaching work to after he is gone, by means of them having a sword and Jesus himself not having one in the relatively immediate future of Matthew 26:52 and John 18:10-11?

I am not sure at all, to be honest.
The passage seems out of place as it has nothing to do with Peter's betrayal.
My guess would be a later interpolation to try and make him looked like he justify earlier prophetic writings, the messiah was supposed to be a military leader, after all, and there are several accounts of him kicking butts, or at least having a sword...

[HansMustermann]

My position is that there are many forms of the cross, including an upright pole. That impalement can apply to being nailed to a crux (in any form) as well as an upright pole. I am testing you all. I am surprised that no one has checked the etymology of the English word impale - all that stuff about poles and pales and to fix.

This is interesting to me because most of you are willing to do a quick check to determine that my sources are not my own and you are willing to check sources, which differs somewhat from other skeptics but you haven't checked that point which you are so sure of due to its present common usage. That intrigues me. Is it possible that, though you doubt the opinion of those who disagree with you (by you I mean skeptics) but not those who agree? This is interesting to me because I usually do the opposite in the case of the latter and take the former for granted.



Okay.



Those were only showing how these words might be used in writing . . . or to confuse you, I'm not sure which and that makes it all the more exciting for me.

David, honestly, you don't want to go there. The "I'm just testing you and you fail!! And it's exciting for me!!!" trolling device is already pretty established as the stereotypical butthurt troll attempt at saving face, and it's kinda surprising that people still think they're so smart for coming up with it. It's not. Just on this board alone we already had it several times, including Yrreg's trying to define a loaded question as an IQ test. It's been done to death before, really. Yawn.

Basically it doesn't really say more than "I'm an idiot troll" by now. And if you just want to convey that meaning, you could have used just those 4 words to the same end.

Otherwise, let's pretend it never happened.

And you still get to support your claims either way.

[jsfisher]

...I am surprised that no one has checked the etymology of the English word impale - all that stuff about poles and pales and to fix....This is interesting to me because most of you are willing to do a quick check to determine that my sources are not my own and you are willing to check sources, which differs somewhat from other skeptics but you haven't checked that point which you are so sure of due to its present common usage.


Umm, why do you assume no one has researched the etymology of the word? I did; I would assume others have.

You seem to make stuff up quite regularly. Please don't do that.

[Simon39759]

David, honestly, you don't want to go there. The "I'm just testing you and you fail!! And it's exciting for me!!!" trolling device is already pretty established as the stereotypical butthurt troll attempt at saving face, and it's kinda surprising that people still think they're so smart for coming up with it. It's not. Just on this board alone we already had it several times, including Yrreg's trying to define a loaded question as an IQ test. It's been done to death before, really. Yawn.

Basically it doesn't really say more than "I'm an idiot troll" by now. And if you just want to convey that meaning, you could have used just those 4 words to the same end.

Otherwise, let's pretend it never happened.

And you still get to support your claims either way.


Dude; "I am an idiot troll" = 5 words.

[David Henson]

David, honestly, you don't want to go there. The "I'm just testing you and you fail!! And it's exciting for me!!!" trolling device is already pretty established as the stereotypical butthurt troll attempt at saving face, and it's kinda surprising that people still think they're so smart for coming up with it. It's not. Just on this board alone we already had it several times, including Yrreg's trying to define a loaded question as an IQ test. It's been done to death before, really. Yawn.

Basically it doesn't really say more than "I'm an idiot troll" by now. And if you just want to convey that meaning, you could have used just those 4 words to the same end.

Otherwise, let's pretend it never happened.

And you still get to support your claims either way.

I don't want to pretend it never happened. It did happen.

[RobRoy]

Dude; "I am an idiot troll" = 5 words.

[pedenat]Contractions are considered a single word.[/pedant]

[Simon39759]

They are?
What kind of mother-flipping ******** is that? Somebody needs to be burned at the stake for that (following whatever method of impalement would have your preference)!

[HansMustermann]

OK, if you really insist, by all means, let's check the etymology of the word "to impale".

Not that we needed you to tell that: you'll notice I discussed the use of pallus in Justus's work before your post to that effect, for example. But let's move on.

Any etymology I can find, makes the original meaning of the word, recorded in 1530 as basically building a pallisade. Or more literally, to enclose something with a wall of stakes.

Then in the early 1600's we have the first recorded use of the word as a means of execution, and it was by _piercing_ with a stake. You know, Vlad The Impaler style.

Though it can also be traced to the middle-French "empaler" and thus to the modern (if fallen in disuse) variant "empale". Again, it never meant simply fixing _on_ the pole.

The key to the combination is the "in" + "pallus". (The middle French "en" was a variant of "in", and "em" was simply the "n" becoming a "m" before the letter "p".) "In" really was the same as "in" in English. Something had to be, or become, inside something else. Thus giving both meanings: one was a village or area becoming _in_ the poles, the other was the pole getting _in_ someone.

As "fixing" someone, it only meant the variety best named transfixing. Definitely not nailing someone to a tree.

It has been used metaphorically much later, as Simon was pointing out about your quote, to means basically "to fix (and make helpless) as if by impaling." It was not a primary meaning of the word, but a metaphor. You know, just like "burning with desire" doesn't really mean a variant of combustion.

And finally, while I'm usually glad to help like above, methinks you don't fully grasp this newfangled "burden of proof" concept. You're the one claiming the positive, you're supposed to bring proof that "impale" or "empale" or "inpallare" or "empalare" were ever used to describe an execution by nailing. Not our job to prove that it never was.

And lame stuff like claiming you were "testing us" won't change that.

So, basically, present your evidence already.

[Towlie]

Are there any jokes in the bible? Intentional ones, I mean.Yes.

Simon had a nickname, rock, which is translated as Peter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_%28name%29) in English. The name is analogous to modern nicknames like Rocky, or, as Dwayne Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwayne_Johnson) is known, The Rock.

In Matthew 16:18, after hearing a bit of sycophantic flattery from Simon, Jesus makes up a cute little pun based on Simon's nickname. he says, "... you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church."

Unfortunately, that one comment, which seems like such a harmless little joke, was and is exploited by the Catholic Church as the basis for the long line of Popes that endures to this day.

[RobRoy]

OK, if you really insist, by all means, let's check the etymology of the word "to impale".

Not that we needed you to tell that: you'll notice I discussed the use of pallus in Justus's work before your post to that effect, for example. But let's move on.

Any etymology I can find, makes the original meaning of the word, recorded in 1530 as basically building a pallisade. Or more literally, to enclose something with a wall of stakes.

Then in the early 1600's we have the first recorded use of the word as a means of execution, and it was by _piercing_ with a stake. You know, Vlad The Impaler style.

Though it can also be traced to the middle-French "empaler" and thus to the modern (if fallen in disuse) variant "empale". Again, it never meant simply fixing _on_ the pole.

The key to the combination is the "in" + "pallus". (The middle French "en" was a variant of "in", and "em" was simply the "n" becoming a "m" before the letter "p".) "In" really was the same as "in" in English. Something had to be, or become, inside something else. Thus giving both meanings: one was a village or area becoming _in_ the poles, the other was the pole getting _in_ someone.

As "fixing" someone, it only meant the variety best named transfixing. Definitely not nailing someone to a tree.

It has been used metaphorically much later, as Simon was pointing out about your quote, to means basically "to fix (and make helpless) as if by impaling." It was not a primary meaning of the word, but a metaphor. You know, just like "burning with desire" doesn't really mean a variant of combustion.

And finally, while I'm usually glad to help like above, methinks you don't fully grasp this newfangled "burden of proof" concept. You're the one claiming the positive, you're supposed to bring proof that "impale" or "empale" or "inpallare" or "empalare" were ever used to describe an execution by nailing. Not our job to prove that it never was.

And lame stuff like claiming you were "testing us" won't change that.

So, basically, present your evidence already.

Nominated. Thank you for this excellent execution and deconstruction of what started as a silly argument to begin with.

[Darth Rotor]

OK, if you really insist, by all means, let's check the etymology of the word "to impale".

Not that we needed you to tell that: you'll notice I discussed the use of pallus in Justus's work before your post to that effect, for example. But let's move on.

Any etymology I can find, makes the original meaning of the word, recorded in 1530 as basically building a pallisade. Or more literally, to enclose something with a wall of stakes.

Then in the early 1600's we have the first recorded use of the word as a means of execution, and it was by _piercing_ with a stake. You know, Vlad The Impaler style.

Though it can also be traced to the middle-French "empaler" and thus to the modern (if fallen in disuse) variant "empale". Again, it never meant simply fixing _on_ the pole.

The key to the combination is the "in" + "pallus". (The middle French "en" was a variant of "in", and "em" was simply the "n" becoming a "m" before the letter "p".) "In" really was the same as "in" in English. Something had to be, or become, inside something else. Thus giving both meanings: one was a village or area becoming _in_ the poles, the other was the pole getting _in_ someone.

As "fixing" someone, it only meant the variety best named transfixing. Definitely not nailing someone to a tree.

It has been used metaphorically much later, as Simon was pointing out about your quote, to means basically "to fix (and make helpless) as if by impaling." It was not a primary meaning of the word, but a metaphor. You know, just like "burning with desire" doesn't really mean a variant of combustion.


How can we somewhat Latinize an action as you described the etymology there?

The action is that of putting an E into JREF. :)

Inejref?? :confused:

Einjref?

Jrefine?

DR