Moron Claims Jesus never existed because crucifixion is impossible

[Baladas]

Why does it even matter what he was crucified on?
The evidence points to a cross (T shaped), but I fail to see why it matters so much.

 

[outhouse]

An easier way would be to use the technology they knew very well , that of raising a yard arm on a mast with a rope.
the victim could have his arms fixed to the yard which would then be easily hoisted like a sail.
The Romans used such structures for many forms of lifting.
the upright could be a fixture.
It would have the advantage of suiting people of any height as you could hoist them till their feet were at the correct hight for fixing.

Yep, a T shape is what I personally follow. With a fixed pole notched to drop a mast on.

 

[outhouse]

The evidence points to a cross, but I fail to see why it matters so much.

Some religions have to be right. "Not certain" or "probably" is not good enough for them.

 

[Nietzsche]

An easier way would be to use the technology they knew very well , that of raising a yard arm on a mast with a rope.
the victim could have his arms fixed to the yard which would then be easily hoisted like a sail.
The Romans used such structures for many forms of lifting.
the upright could be a fixture.
It would have the advantage of suiting people of any height as you could hoist them till their feet were at the correct hight for fixing.

...that's much better. Thank you.

Why does it even matter what he was crucified on?
The evidence points to a cross, but I fail to see why it matters so much.

Ask Peg & Kolibri.

It's humorous this JW is arguing about people being too attached to their traditions to change their mind... to a Jew, an agnostic, and the heathen king. In other words, no one who even revers/holds onto some cross tradition?

I'm not sure it gets more ironic. Guys, really, let go of your cross tradition. All your use of history and archeology and proper citation of scholars. Just let it go and get with the times.

Sheesh! The Watchtower says so, and there's no hint of hidden agenda or outright bible fraud in that organization!

Well the answer is obvious, isn't it? We're all sleeper-Catholics, waiting for the Red Smoke to issue forth from Satan's own throne in the bowels of the Vatican!

 

[oldbadger]

That's not quite how Roman Crucifixion worked. The person was nailed(or rather staked, as one can't really call what they used 'nails') in the ankles & the wrists, a rope tied around the chest, and a small platform for the feet to rest on.

How about, ...... The arms were lashed to the crossbar at the elbows, with (smaller) nails through palms of hands so that convict could not struggle free? The body can be tied and the feet can do what they want, since any person would place them on the rest to push up from time to time. I have read that crucifixion was intended to last about three days of crushing agony and torture, so the Romans would have been keen to check blood loss?

 

[Baladas]

I heard somewhere that they nailed the testicles of their victims too.
I'm not sure of the credibility of that claim though.

 

[Nietzsche]

How about, ...... The arms were lashed to the crossbar at the elbows, with (smaller) nails through palms of hands so that convict could not struggle free?

You're not going to struggle free to begin with. These were public executions, after all, and the individual was beaten before being put on it. At that point, it doesn't really matter. Also, from what I understand, the Romans were perfectly capable of placing the stake so that it missed arteries & bone. There's an empty space within the arm/wrist.

The body can be tied and the feet can do what they want, since any person would place them on the rest to push up from time to time. I have read that crucifixion was intended to last about three days of crushing agony and torture, so the Romans would have been keen to check blood loss?

I don't know. What would they be doing by pushing themselves 'up'? I don't really see that doing anything to help their situation, honestly.

I heard somewhere that they nailed the gonads of their victims too.
I'm not sure of the credibility of that claim though.

I've seen that bandied about, but I've never found the first bit of evidence that it was anything other than a myth or exaggeration.

 

[Baladas]

I've seen that bandied about, but I've never found the first bit of evidence that it was anything other than a myth or exaggeration.

Well, that's somewhat comforting.

 

[Kolibri]

To me, it is not a matter of "having to be right". I presented my reasons for believing it was a certain way. There was and usually is a bit of back and forth discussion on it. Then as far as I am concerned, I spent enough time on it. It gets dropped.

 

[catch22]

To me, it is not a matter of "having to be right". I presented my reasons for believing it was a certain way. There was and usually is a bit of back and forth discussion on it. Then as far as I am concerned, I spent enough time on it. It gets dropped.

I'd drop it too if I got my arse wrapped up and handed to me in such a fashion.

 

[Domenic]

Thought you would all like this rock solid argument. Jesus christ never existed because crucifixion is impossible according to this brilliant soul -

The Romans kept records of everything. How to set up camps, wage war, eat, etc…yes, and how to crucify People. The Christian religions show Jesus hanging on a cross. This never happened. The cross was the symbol of Nimrod who was against God.

Here is how the Romans crucified people. They nailed their hands (base of the hands) above the victims head on an upright pole. ( it was called a torture stake.) They also nailed the feet to the pole. With the victim’s hands above his head, the weight of his body made it hard to breath, and in time the victim would suffocate. Most times the Romans would break the legs of the victim so they could not hold their self up. When they had Jesus on the stake the sun was ready to go down. Under Jewish law, you could not leave a man to die during the Passover. To speed up Jesus death they speared him in the side rather than break his legs. It was written that the Messiahs legs would not be broken.

Side note: Older Bible never said cross, they said, “Torture Stake.”

 

[outhouse]

The Romans kept records of everything

No they did not. Not everything.

They kept some records, most of which are all lost and do not exist.

Here is how the Romans crucified people

Your providing a fraction of how they abused people. They used many ways to crucify thousands of victims.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Romans kept records of everything. How to set up camps, wage war, eat, etc…yes, and how to crucify People. The Christian religions show Jesus hanging on a cross. This never happened. The cross was the symbol of Nimrod who was against God.

Here is how the Romans crucified people. They nailed their hands (base of the hands) above the victims head on an upright pole. ( it was called a torture stake.) They also nailed the feet to the pole. With the victim’s hands above his head, the weight of his body made it hard to breath, and in time the victim would suffocate. Most times the Romans would break the legs of the victim so they could not hold their self up. When they had Jesus on the stake the sun was ready to go down. Under Jewish law, you could not leave a man to die during the Passover. To speed up Jesus death they speared him in the side rather than break his legs. It was written that the Messiahs legs would not be broken.

Side note: Older Bible never said cross, they said, “Torture Stake.”

I'mma' just leave this here;

Mmm, one could not carry the entire cross, no. But the crossbeam? That's quite doable.



I got something for you. Here are a set of images depicting various crucifixions.

The first one dates back to the 3rd century BCE.

This one is 2nd Century CE graffiti, depicting a woman(the picture does not show it, but there is a name above it, 'Alcimilla')

This one is one of the earliest depictions of the Nazarene's crucifixion from roughly the 3rd Century(the words are mocking a Christian named Alexamenos)

And this here is a 2nd/3rd century CE talisman of sorts, depicting Jesus

Still sure it was a stake/spike?

 

[Domenic]

No they did not. Not everything.

They kept some records, most of which are all lost and do not exist.
Your providing a fraction of how they abused people. They used many ways to crucify thousands of victims.

You always say not true, but you never prove anything...It's like being in an outhouse with out any paper.

 

[Nietzsche]

You always say not true, but you never prove anything...It's like being in an outhouse with out any paper.

Errr, you're the one making the claim of extensive records, it's up to you to show that they kept them.

 

[Kolibri]

In regards to the idea of dishonesty being presented. I guess this arguement has been made before. On the following link I found this:


On an online discussion board one poster stated in regard to the WTB&TS's use of works that discuss the Greek word Stauros and the form of execution of the crucifixion said:

"QUOTE.......... MISQUOTE: In its "Reasoning From the Scriptures" book, the Watchtower Society quotes from several sources to support their "torture stake" theory. These publications not only seem authoritative, but also seem to support the Society's claims regarding the "torture stake" rather than the traditional cross. However, unbeknown to many, the Watchtower Society has not been honest in its quotations of its sources. For example, one publication that the Society quotes in its "Reasoning..." book on page 89 is The Imperial Bible Dictionary. Below is the Watchtower quotation, with the words that they omitted in RED: "The Imperial Bible Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "The Greek word for cross, (stauros), properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling (fencing in) a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added ... about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." "-italics ours

But this attempt at trying to malign the WTB&TS's use of this Bible Dictionary is easily put to the lie itself. For the poster omitted to tell his readers what the publication "Reasoning from the Scriptures"(p.89) said just before quoting the above named Dictionary. We can read his own omission which I will put in green: "The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NWT) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges....."- blue italics ours. Rather then the WTB&TS being "dishonest" it is the case that, sadly, the above poster has been. Notice also that this dictionary also said that the stauros being "originally an upright pole," "always remained the more prominent part." What we have read on this page already shows that though the Romans did indeed use two pieces of wood placed at right angles to each other to execute criminals we are still faced with the fact that the Bible writers give no indication that in Jesus' case it was other than an upright stake.

The poster went on to state:

"On page 91 of the "Reasoning..." book the Society quotes from The Cross in Ritual, Architecture and Art by G. S. Tyack to show that the cross was originally used in pagan worship, but they do NOT go on to quote: "In all this, the Christians of the first age would have rejoiced, claiming it as a worldwide prophecy of the Cross of the Redeemer."

Of course, what the poster is not telling, again, his readers, is that this work(and three others found on p.91 of the Reasoning Book)was quoted under the heading "What were the historical origins of Christendom's cross?"(p.90) Hence, to quote Tyack here as saying "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," was quite appropriate and fitting. However, the above remarks which Tyack followed up this "strange yet unquestionable fact" was just his opinion andone which was not based on any archaeological evidence whatsoever. We have already read that which Professor Graydon has written that the Christians in the early centuries did not use a "cross" in their worship or devotions. The "Christians of the first age" certainly did not "rejoice" in any way at the pagans use of the cross as a symbol in their worship. It is as Vine correctly stated was the case that "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 of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ"
It is very easy for a distractor of the NWT/WTB&TS to carp at a translation that he disagrees with. But it is sad when he does that which he falsely accuses the said Bible Society of doing. Being dishonest.

- STAUROS

This is not to continue the argument of whether it was a mere stake or something more elaborate, but to address the charge of dishonesty only.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't know. What would they be doing by pushing themselves 'up'? I don't really see that doing anything to help their situation, honestly..

The step....... I have always believed that it was there to keep the condemned alive. For instance, to finish off a condemned, the legs were broken = no push up = death from lack of air?

We don't know sod all, do we? It's amazing that we just don't know exactly how this fairly common practice was carried out.,

 

[shawn001]

The History of the Cross Before Jesus

The History of the Cross Before Jesus | eHow

 

[psychoslice]

Well of course Jesus never excited, crucifixion or not.

 

[shawn001]

just for some info

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion – Biblical Archaeology Society