See other Religion Articles
Title: Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: Bible
Post Date: 2007-10-18 13:09:07 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 3034
Comments: 195
I find it curious that so many people have so much faith in men. And, in what men say, and this is esp. true when what the men says flys directly in the face of what they claim to represent/say. I hold to this firmly; A man is known by his actions, and not by his words. And this leads me directly to what is wrong with America; the churches. And specifically those churches which claim to be Christian churches. And to the men who serve in those churches, and who know that they lie. After all, such men do, supposedly, read the Bible. Well, they have at least one time in their lives I think it is fair to assume. More than that? Pretty doubtful actually. So this brings me to the question I posed in the title of this post; Was Jesus Christ crucified on a cross? The only acceptable answer to this comes from the Bible. I assume that everyone who claims to be Christian will agree with this. My first Bible (that I read extensively) was The King James Study Bible. I have continued to use it, although I have more than a dozen different Bibles now. In the King James; Galatians 3:13; Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED is EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE. Second witness; "...for it is written ... " ; Deutronomy 22:22; And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him from a tree; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) ... Now, this may come as a surprise to many of you, but a tree ain't a cross; it is a post. In the Spanish translation of the King James, it is clearer, for they use the term madero, which means board, or, post. In addition, if you have read anything about the Roman Empire, one of the notable facts about the Romans was their efficiency in killing people. And it is not efficient to use two pieces of wood, i.e., a cross, when a single piece of wood, a post, will suffice. And, in fact, this is how the Romans did hang those who they wished to make examples out of; on a post. (Yeah, yeah, I know; all the movies use crosses. And, your point is?) There is another point that must be made here; when a man is hung on a post, or, for that matter, if he were to be hung on a cross, with nails, YOU CAN NOT DRIVE THE NAILS THROUGH THE PALMS OF HIS HAND. It will not work, because when the post/cross is lifted up and dropped into the hole prepared for it, the nails will rip out of the hands and the man will drop to the ground. The Romans knew this from, I am sure, experience, and the nails were ALWAYS driven into the wrists of the victim, between the two bones of the arm. This is the only location which offers enough strength to be usuable is such a manner. The best depiction of Jesus being executed that I have seen is contained in the Watchtower book; What Does The Bible Really Teach? on page 52. What does this mean: If you are attending a so-called Christian church, which uses the cross as a part of their worship, and protrays Jesus on that cross with nails through the palms of his hand, then you are participating in a deliberate lie. And, you are in a church properly described in Revelations a one of the daughters of the whore of Babylon. (I paraphrase; not going to look it up today.) Now, let's look at a couple of other Bibles and see what is said; New American Standard Bible; Galatians 3:13; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us -- for it is writte, "CUESED IS EVERY ONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE" -- Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, (23) his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), ... Pretty good. Not far off, but.... let's take a quick look at another Bible. Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text (George M. Lamsa's Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta); Galatians 3:13; Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming accursed for our sakes (for it is writtenm Crused is everyone who hangs on a cross). OOPS! WOW! Boy, do we need that second witness now! Second Witness; Deuteronomy 21:22; And if any man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is crucified on a tree, and thus put to death; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree but you shall bury him the same day (for he who shall revile God shall be crucified), ... Gotta a problem here, because the second witness does not confirm what was written in Galatians. That means that there is an error in this Bible, and brings into question any quotes taken from it, unless they be confirmed by a second witness. And this problem probably stems from the translator wanting to believe what he had been taught about the cross. And rather than translate directly, he transposed his beliefs into the translation. I am a Christian; I freely and happily and contentedly proclaim this to be true. Chritianity is NOT a religion; it is a way of life, attempting to follow in the footsteps of The Christ. As a Christian, I have a responsibility to study His Word, that I not be lead into error. I accept that responsibility. I also accept the responsibility to help others to learn as well, that any errors that I or they hold may be revealed and corrected jointly. I have stated this before; I ask for correction in anything that I am in error on. And I have been corrected, and I thank those who help me to learn, and, (this is a big one!) change. I hope you find this post helpful, and that it helps to bring all of us to a wider understanding of what is being, deliberately, done to America, through what is supposed to be His church (people). Next post, in a day or so; Is Jesus Christ God?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-74) not displayed.
.
.
.
#75. To: innieway (#74)
Well, that should be interesting. When do you plan to post his? I want to see the fireworks.
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? What are the morning stars? What are the sons of God? What is the Pleiades, the bands of Orion, and Arcturus with his sons? What is Mazzaroth? It's all very simple if you do a little research and use a little common sense.
that's the crux. whether or not you or anyone believe the bible is the word of God. it ultimately comes down to that faith.
Ow, that hurt. That will be four hundred dollars, please. Hahaha!
And now they won't disclose the money supply, because they KNOW it is off the chart.
Archaeologists unveil ancient church in Israel What's that on the floor? It looks like two fish to me.
What point are you trying to make with the two fish in the mosaic? I also see Greek letters in the lower r/h corner....... Early christians met in private homes for a long time. Paul invariably went to the synagogues first; and then when tossed out or unreceptiveness was met, he would meet with gentiles anywhere--even by river banks. There were no 'church buildings' such as one thinks of churches today. Church did not mean a building. But I'm interested in the 'fish' connection with what is being discussed here. Thanx
The two fish represents the Age of Pisces. Jesus is said to have fed his followers with two fish. Pisces is an astrological symbol of the Zodiac. There are many astrological references in the Bible. For instance, Job 38:32 says, "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?" The word "Mazzaroth" actually means Zodiac. The other passages I referenced in an earlier post deal with astrological symbolism. They talk about planets and stars and how they affect events on Earth, hence the "sweet influences." The "morning stars" are quite possibly the planets Venus and Mercury. The Pleiades, the bands of Orion, and Arcturus and his sons are stars in the night sky.
Looks like someone was entering in the age of Pisces. Which is what they were doing. With a new story to carry the 2000 year age, the timeless story of the earth, its sun, and its annual journey.
I was looking for the significance of the two fish as it relates to the story of the cross as richard's thread is about. I know about the bread and fishes; and I understand about astronomy, constellations, and the like. There's an interesting little booklet titled something like "Glory of the Stars' that deals with ancient constellation meanings, symbolism, etc. Thanx
You may want to start charging in gold or Euros or something. "That will be ½ oz of gold" has a nice ring to it doesn't it? I like charging in silver - I like the "way it feels in my hand".
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. 30 pieces of silver sounds about right for this job I can't believe the Loonie is worth more than the dollar. Way to go, federal money managers!
No kidding!!! One thing sure isn't "off the chart" about the money supply though - it's purchasing power.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. True. They can't "fix" the exchange rate and they can't "fix" buying power of a dollar.
HAHAHAHA Did you see where the dollar index is sitting now? 77.31!!! Gravity sure has a firm grip on the dollar. That chart looks like a California mudslide.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. And you think all these stories about the life of a mythical person who never existed were put into circulation at a time when plenty of people were still around who remembered what was going on in Jerusalem, Judaea, and Galilee at the time the mythical person supposedly lived?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Apparently you've never heard of the Mormon religion or Scientology. You really should check them out. Religions don't need facts. I hope there was a man like Jesus, who actually repeated the lessons he had learned from other cultures and tried to get his ignorant Hebrew tribesmen to abandon their silly rituals and accept a truly spiritual outlook. There's no proof. If you believe it, you likely believe it because it is essential to your maintenance of your belief that your religion matters.
I do not claim that there is conclusive proof that Jesus existed, merely that the evidence that he existed is as good as it is for many figures of ancient history, and that it is considerably more likely than not that he existed.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I know. You think if you say your opinion repeatedly, it becomes more than your opinion. It doesn't. YOU THINK Jesus was real, because YOU NEED to believe he was. Accept it.
Goldi-Lox and Yukon?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Whereas you keep saying that, if the existence of Jesus can't be proved beyond a doubt, people should act as if he never existed. I'm not terribly religious, by the way. I'm trying to judge this matter by the standards of ancient historians. Did you notice the quote from Michael Grant earlier in this thread?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That's the quote from Michael Grant. You will see that he was saying, while he was still alive, pretty much the same thing I'm saying in this thread.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You will see from this link, So Just What Do Classical Historians Make of the New Testament Documents?, that Michael Grant was not the only distinguished ancient historian who has taken the New Testament documents seriously as historical sources. Here's a summary of scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth theory that Jesus never existed: Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth: After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Wikipedia article on the subject, Historicity of Jesus, concludes: The unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[74],[75] & [76].
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Here is a link to a website that has a chart listing all sorts of writings from olden times through the Bible, providing numbers of originals or copies used, dates, and Accuracy. Interesting to note that the Bible is more accurate in translation than Homer. Where are all the anti-Homer folks? I tried to copy this chart over to here, but it all ran together making it unreadable. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry is the web site.
Actually, it's not clear that a poet named Homer ever existed (although, obviously, some person or persons must have composed the Iliad, Odyssey, and Homeric Hymns.) On the other hand, the evidence is pretty strong that a person named Jesus actually existed.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
(2.) I'm not terribly religious, by the way. I'm trying to judge this matter by the standards of ancient historians. (3.) Did you notice the quote from Michael Grant earlier in this thread? 1. I've never said that. You should know the difference being something that is proven and something that is speculated. You continue to attempt to recharacterize what I say so that it fits whatever straw man you're trying to erect. While you were getting that classical education, didn't they teach you how to write a sentence without including completely unnecessary commas? There's no comma between "that" and "if." 2. No, you're not trying to judge it by the standards of ancient historians. You're trying to bogart your way past the fact that you have no proof Jesus was ever born, so you believe what you want to believe. And contrary to your statement, you're more than a little bit religious. Just admit that you think of yourself as a Christian, and you believe the story of Jesus because you have faith, not proof. 3. Unlike you, I don't try to prove something that is factual by giving the opinion someone has given which happens to agree with mine. Try logic and facts. They work a lot better than quoting someone whose opinion you think matters.
You're queer for that guy. So what? He's your authority, but he's just another ass clown with an opinion.
Dude, get a grip. You're having another OCD episode. You've quoted the same guy and the same source four or five times now. He's full of shit and you're even more full of shit than he is.
The lives of other important figures like that of Socrates are often trotted out in discussions like this because many people believe that there are significant & fundamental differences between the source documents that we rely onto demonstrate the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and those written during the life of Socrates that refer to his acts and words. Many of us believe in the historicity of Socrates because 1) The source documents, as previously mentioned, were written by contemporaries, during his lifetime or not long after his execution. 2) There are no references to miraculous events attributed to the subject of these writings that cause readers to doubt their objectivity, and 3) Although the sources for Socrates are fewer in number, the sources that we do have for him are in camps both sympathetic and antagonistic to him. I wonder, aristeides, aside from your reverence for your friend, Grant, how you feel about the relative veracity and reliability of the Paul & the Gospels vs. Xenophon, Plato and Arisophanes. My mind is always open to new perspectives.
Gloria est pro petroleo mori.
So you don't like Michael Grant. I wonder if you followed the links I gave you. They cited several very distinguished sources in addition to Michael Grant. Can you name a single ancient historian who agrees with your position?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Wikipedia article I give the link to in #98 cites several non-Christian ancient sources. If you look, for example, at the Tacitus passage, you will not find any sympathy with Christ or Christians.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Plato seems to have written a generation or more after the death of Socrates. That's more distant from Socrates's death than Paul's epistles and the early Gospels are from Christ's.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I wonder, aristeides, aside from your reverence for your friend, Grant I never met Grant, although I have read several of his books. I wouldn't say I actually revere him. I do respect him. He was a very gifted popularizer of scholarship, and that talent is worthy of respect. In this case, however, I know his position is that of almost all if not all ancient historians, including some who are very unfriendly to Christianity.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You claim to be a lawyer, do you not? I think that means being able to judge evidence. If all ballistics experts were to agree that a bullet was fired by a certain weapon, and you were unable to find a single expert who disagreed, what would you conclude?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Are you claiming Joseph Smith did not exist? Are you claiming L. Ron Hubbard did not exist?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So, was Christ hanged on a cross, a post, or what?
Does it really matter?
Dumber people than me have done it.
Exactly - good grief.
You claim to be a college graduate, do you not? You should know how to write better if you are. I have judged your evidence. You're a typical Bible thumper. I make you for a retired government employee. Post Office? Social Security? HUD?
Comments (115 - 195) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#76. To: innieway (#60)
#77. To: innieway (#74)
That may well be, but if that's the case it's because those "holy books" are not authentic as to being inspired by The Creator.
#78. To: innieway (#69)
the worst thing that ever happened to law was that "lawyers" got their hands on it.
#79. To: innieway (#71)
As well as those enrolled in the Social Security ponzy scheme; the various licensing schemes; the Federal Reserve, banking, stock market and related schemes, and the various "welfare" schemes.
#80. To: innieway (#60)
#81. To: Alan Chapman (#80)
#82. To: rowdee (#81)
#83. To: Alan Chapman (#80)
#84. To: Alan Chapman (#82)
#85. To: Paul Revere (#78)
That will be four hundred dollars, please.
Steven Wright
#86. To: innieway (#85)
#87. To: Paul Revere (#79)
And now they won't disclose the money supply, because they KNOW it is off the chart.
Steven Wright
#88. To: innieway (#87)
(Edited)
#89. To: Paul Revere (#86)
I can't believe the Loonie is worth more than the dollar. Way to go, federal money managers!
Steven Wright
#90. To: Paul Revere (#55)
#91. To: aristeides (#90)
And you think all these stories about the life of a mythical person who never existed were put into circulation at a time when plenty of people were still around who remembered what was going on in Jerusalem, Judaea, and Galilee at the time the mythical person supposedly lived?
#92. To: Paul Revere (#91)
#93. To: aristeides (#92)
#94. To: Alan Chapman (#25)
Here's a statue of Isis (the virgin) holding Horus, the son of God. Does it remind you of anyone?
#95. To: Paul Revere (#93)
#96. To: Paul Revere, SmokinOPs (#44)
…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[73] - Michael Grant
#97. To: Paul Revere (#93)
#98. To: Paul Revere (#93)
#99. To: aristeides (#96)
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
#100. To: rowdee (#99)
#101. To: aristeides (#95)
(1.) Whereas you keep saying that, if the existence of Jesus can't be proved beyond a doubt, people should act as if he never existed.
#102. To: aristeides (#96)
That's the quote from Michael Grant
#103. To: aristeides (#98)
#104. To: Paul Revere, aristeides (#103)
#105. To: Paul Revere (#103)
#106. To: randge (#104)
#107. To: randge (#104)
#108. To: randge (#104)
(Edited)
#109. To: Paul Revere (#101)
Unlike you, I don't try to prove something that is factual by giving the opinion someone has given which happens to agree with mine. Try logic and facts. They work a lot better than quoting someone whose opinion you think matters.
#110. To: Paul Revere (#91)
Apparently you've never heard of the Mormon religion or Scientology.
#111. To: the thread (#110)
#112. To: lodwick (#111)
#113. To: Critter (#112)
Does it really matter?
#114. To: aristeides (#109)
(Edited)
You claim to be a lawyer, do you not? I think that means being able to judge evidence.
.
.
.