Yes, that would be my understanding.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cross or Upright Stake
- Thread starter David Davidovich
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Please let me understand. Not sure I got it, but is it that you believe Simon carried the entire cross?Yes, that would be my understanding.
Matthew 27:32
Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross.
I wasn't there.. but...
Stauros
stow-ros'Noun Masculine
- an upright stake, esp. a pointed one
- a cross
- a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves
- the crucifixion which Christ underwent
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. I'll get back (maybe) about this. have a good night.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And that seems to rule out an upright stake. An upright stake planted freshly into the ground is not very stable. It takes a fair amount of work and tamping, and settling before such an upright becomes stable. Also the various means of crucifixion by the Romans was well known. They continually tired to make the torture worse and last longer. A cross beam allows a person to be hung up in a way that they can continue to breathe. Plus one could carry the cross beam to the place of execution. The evidence appears to support a crucifixion with a Tau type cross. One more like a capital T. I do not think that they ever used what is pictured as a cross at today's churches. The upright was probably just a stick that held up the sign stating the crimes that the victims were charged with.Yes, that would be my understanding.
cataway
Well-Known Member
why? is there a rule some were that states that a execution pole has to be plum ?
cataway
Well-Known Member
its blatantly obvious that there a large number of people here that have no idea as to how hard it is to stand a pole with a man attached to it. you should know the victim does not want to be there .its not like they would be cooperating. if the victim would shift their weight left an right even a little would throw the balance off . would not surprise me one bit to fined out many were dropped before being up righted.
It is possible that it was a capital T. The only caveat is if you can still put a sign on top of the head after being tied to a Tau type cross. (Hello to my frat DDT brothers
) Another question I would have is whether the actually cross was made before the execution or brought in pieces to the place of execution and then created.
I still think that a single pole was used at times, maybe when they were doused oil and pitch and used as candles?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Jesus was a carpenter by trade. This is hard physical work. That meant Jesus was, more than likely, in good athletic condition, due to lifting heavy wood, sawing and hammering for at least a decade. The bible also suggests that Jesus, was unmarried and that he liked to eat out with his friends. The Pharisees called him a drunkard and glutton.Wikipedia has a good article on this. There were two common types of crucifixion that the Romans used. The used a simple stake at times. But Jesus was probably crucified on stake with a cross piece on top. It would have looked like an upper case "T:". Also the idea that Jesus would have carried the whole cross as commonly depicted is probably wrong because a cross put up with a body on it would not be very stable. He probably only carried the cross piece and was put up on a stake that was a permanent part of the city just for crucifixions:
Crucifixion - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As a carpenter, without children and a wife, Jesus would be middle class, with extra disposable income, and a need to eat out; no wife to cook. If you add this up, Jesus was a young man in good physical shape, who ate well and was not starving and tired. Jesus knew what he would soon face; torture, and he (was) trained to endure this by his lifestyle. His preparation lifestyle also explains how he could wander 40 days in the desert; live off body diet. This stress training would also help him deal with severe dehydration and physical discomfort. He was ready to endure the torture. He would pushed the issue in front of the defensive Pharisees, leading to the inevitable.
I was watching an Easter Special on the ministry of Jesus, leading to his death and resurrection. I had never seen this version of the passion, before. It painted Pontus Pilot as a cruel politician who had advance up the ranks from a soldier. His methods were cruel and forceful. The story showed his soldiers killing dozens of demonstrators at a Passover riot. I often wondered why Pilot is often portrayed as sticking up for Jesus.
The program showed a bible situation where a high ranking Pharisee, Nicodemus questions Jesus in public; to ambush him. He asked Jesus if the Jews should pay taxes, in front of the Roman Guard, to get Jesus. Jesus pauses and then answers Nicodemus; whose face is this on this coin. Nicodemus answers, Caesar! Jesus then says render onto Caesar was is Caesar's and render onto God what is God's. The guard must have told this event to Pilot, which may have made Jesus seem like an ally of Rome, since that answer showed he was not an enemy of Rome. He was only an enemy of the Jews who protested taxes and the Pharisees.Rome ran the crucification and Jesus was killed with distinction by Pilot; cross.
In the psychology of Carl Jung, there are four psychological functions; intellect, emotions, sensations and intuition. These are the four ways all humans orientation themselves to reality. We will think, feel, use five senses and have hunches. These are the same for all humans and would have been the same at the time of Jesus. The 4 point cross, symbolized these four functions for conscious awareness within human nature, with Jesus placed in the center; he was the inner self. The 4 point cross would have archetypically affect; felt unconsciously. This is why it was chosen; timeless human symbolic affect.
The two thieves, one on each side of Jesus, symbolized law. One is capable of looking at reality; four functions. Law requires you learn good and evil, thereby filling your unconscious mind; memory, with both the good and evil data of law. The good person will learn evil but repress it. The two thieves symbolized how law taints even the good person, since it require learning sin, which can become unconscious and compulsive. One thief regrets what he did and can accept his fate; good outside and evil inside. The other thief was evil in and out; denial. Law was also killed in this event. Law was used to kill the son of man.
If you look at the sign of the cross in Christianity, the top is the Father; minds eye, the bottom is the Son; solar plexus, and the two sides; shoulders are the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the son of man; physical or sensory manifestation of God. This feet touch the earth; the son was the sensory function; we could see God in action. The Father is intuition; the creative principle and wisdom. While the Holy spirit is intellect (left side of the cross) and emotions (right side of the cross). The latin for Left is the word sinister. At that time intellect was considered lower, than emotion, but still sanctioned by the spirit.
The vertical post would be only Father and Son, or intuition and sensation, which are opposing functions. This would have led to everlasting conflict between faith; intuition, and seeing is believing; sensory only. The cross; Holy Spirit, adds logic and feeling to help bridge intuition; faith, to sensory need. This gives one reasons and feelings from the spirit of truth to help bridge the opposition implied by just the Father and Son. In innovation, the intuition, when given the drive of emotions, leads to intellectual pursuit, to make it tangible in reality, so others can see; sensory.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem with an upright pole is that it would not be stable. Try putting a pole in the ground of any respectable size. It takes time and work to get all of the surrounding soil to be stable. For me the idea that Jesus had to carry his cross, or more likely crossbar tells us that he was crucified on a Tau cross.It is possible that it was a capital T. The only caveat is if you can still put a sign on top of the head after being tied to a Tau type cross. (Hello to my frat DDT brothers
Another question I would have is whether the actually cross was made before the execution or brought in pieces to the place of execution and then created.
I still think that a single pole was used at times, maybe when they were doused oil and pitch and used as candles?
And yes, the Romans were into all sorts of torture. But the idea was a long slow death. Not a quick one.
cataway
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you did not notice that after a few hours of hanging the legs would be broken .it was done to make the person die more quickly
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In some instances yes. But not always. In fact it was probably the exception rather than the rule.
Jesus was probably also never taken down from the cross. At least not immediately after he died. Why would the Romans allow that?
cataway
Well-Known Member
me, having read the bible ,i know he was taken down . maybe ,just maybe if you would read the book you would stop tiring to invent your own ending to what happened
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you do not "know" that he was taken down. You only know that the Bible claims that. You cannot claim to "know" that unless you can demonstrate that the Bible is reliable, and I am sure that you will fail in that argument. If one studies history that Jesus was taken down would have been highly unlikely.
cataway
Well-Known Member
DEUTERONOMY 21:22 “If a man commits a sin deserving the sentence of death and he has been put to death and you have hung him on a stake, 23 his dead body should not remain all night on the stake. Instead, you should be sure to bury him on that day, because the one hung up is something accursed of God, and you should not defile your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance."
so yes he would of been taken down.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, he wouldn't. That is a Jewish law. The Romans did not give a fig about the laws or the religious beliefs of the people that they conquered. It was a Roman Crucifixion.
Read your Bible. They got it wrong of course because the Romans would have left him up.
cataway
Well-Known Member
you is wild guessing .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are. I have read up on the history of crucifixion. You are relying on a book of myths.
Why would you make such an accusation without any evidence? Do not assume that others are guilty of your sins.
cataway
Well-Known Member
oh you read up on the history of crucifixion. now you are some kind of expert. the body of Jesus was taken down placed in a tomb . his God then days letter resurrected him . and for some reason you dont like that. so the power of God is now in question
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. Just quit. I merely know more than you do. That is a very low bar to pass.
You are simply using poor reasoning. Do you think that Christianity really relies upon the resurrection?