by VorJack
Help me out here folks, because I’m not sure how I feel about this one.
A Swedish scholar named Gunnar Samuelsson has successfully defended his thesis that the Gospels do not clearly describe a crucifixion that matches later traditions.
His argument seems to hinge on the word “stauroun,” which the Gospels use in a way that has been interpreted as meaning “crucified.” As in, “He was handed over to be ‘stauroun.’
In this case, “stauroun” simply means to hang or suspend. Samuelsson has apparently done his homework and found that in the Gospel period, “stauroun” used in the case of executions could mean hanging or impaling.
There are a number of places to read about Samuelsson’s argument. CNN’s Belief blog has one report, but like a lot of other reports it has problems. Consider the opening:
There have been plenty of attacks on Christianity over the years, but few claims have been more surprising than one advanced by an obscure Swedish scholar this spring.
How is this an attack? Samuelsson’s arugment is very narrow; one might even say pedantic. He’s arguing that the Gospels – and only the Gospels – do not absolutely say that Jesus was crucified. That might be what they are trying to say, but there’s enough wiggle room in the words chosen that they could also be telling us that he was impaled or hung.
It reminds me a bit of the argument over Joesph’s profession, and by extension Jesus’s early profession: were they carpenters? The word the Gospel’s use is “tekton,” which merely means “manual laborer.” It’s the same root as our words like “technical,” or “technician,” that is, working with the hands. It might mean that Joesph was a carpenter (though probably not a furniture maker as sometimes depicted but rather a home builder), but it might not. The tradition that Joesph was a carpenter is first found in Justin Maytyr a century after Jesus’ death.
Regardless of what the Gospels say, early Christian tradition definitely had the idea that Jesus had been nailed to a cross. It’s possible that they were embroidering a bit, or perhaps were cleaning some things up, but I don’t see any real reason to be suspicious of the traditional reading as long as we bear Samuelsson’s points in mind.
Though I admit, part of me is morbidly curious as to what would have happened to early Christianity if Jesus had been impaled through the anus, as was sometimes done.
Hmmm, no, on second thought, nevermind.
Inerrant word of god, my ass.
Another thing that got lost in translation …
I always wondered about the peculiar wording of Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.”
I’m not sure why Christians would be so up in arms over this. That Jesus died (and subsequently resurrected) is what’s crucial to the story. How he died isn’t. It probably just shows how simple tradition becomes entrenched as dogma. “We’ve always believed Jesus was nailed to a cross and, doggone it, that’s what happened!”
They’re worried that if it catch on they will have to spend millions replacing all the crosses in churches around the world with a hangman noose.
Not to mention all that cross jewelry that will have to be melted down and turned into little hangman nooses. What a chore!
Wow a holy icon in my game of Clue!
I think people are missing the point here.
From my perspective as Christian (and despite the cross hanging around my neck) it makes no difference to me how Christ died. People also fail to realise how no one puts any importance on the cross within the bible. IT WAS JUST A CROSS, and a painful way today.
Its only we as Humans who decided we are going to use the Cross to symbolise Christ. Christ did not ask us to do that. Christ did not even ask us to call ourselves “Christians” or “Catholics.
All those were human choices!!
What matters, more then anything, is that this man gave his life willingly in death (whether on a cross, or hung from a treet), as a final blood sacrifice to prevent Evil from taking over the world and to save humanity from judgement from God.
If you want a better perspective and understanding on that, I would suggest reading the fictional books “Chronicle of Brothers”. It may not be an astounding read and it may take some liberties with the source material, but it certainly gives a greater understanding on Why Jesus was brought to Earth knowing he would die.
I would also suggest people read “the shack” to gain a perspective on what is most important to the faith. It isnt about rituals, laws, going to church, singing and dancing or wearing a cross. Its about our relationship with God, through Christ and through each other.
God doesnt care how we live our lives, as long as we are good people and we talk to him like a father. We can do as we please as long as we love one another and let God experience our lives through us.
How he died is the least important part of the entire thing IMO.
On the contrary, how he died is VERY important. If something as big as the way the jesus died was lost in translation, what guarantee do we have that other parts of god’s inerrant word aren’t misrepresented? Maybe god actually loves fags and the bible was translated wrong? Maybe eve didn’t eat an apple but gave adam head(Some apple!)? Who knows. But the point is that if it’s not the perfect word of god(As shown by the fact something can be lost in translation), then we shouldn’t trust it’s stance on anything, much less what it has to say about what god thinks.
In all fairness, there’s a difference between something being vague and something being wrong. That the Bible is vague on the crucifiction details to the point where it’s open to interpretation, does not in itself mean the details are incorrect.
To turn said fairness back around on you, there have been numerous examples of the bible being plain wrong, no vagueness at all involved.
I agree, though I’d say this is not one such case – or at least it’s much less clear-cut.
How is whether he died on a cross on a tree important? Explain how that has any majorimpact on the message which God/Christ tries to give us through the bible?
I am a Christian and I don’t for a second believe every word written in the bible is completely accurate. I believe in evolution and the big bang of which I believe God played a part in directing. I also have no doubt the Church has changed small parts here and there to benefit themselves.
Does that devalue the VERY simple message of love they neighbour which Jesus states as the second most important law? No it doesnt.
If you look at a piece of art hanging in a gallery or a sculpture and it shows something beautiful, loving, peaceful, harmonic and respectful… is that loving message devalued because the artist used their imagination and distorted reality?
No it doesnt.The beauty is still there in that image or the sculpture.
If you read a book like “The Shack” which is completely fictional and made up, is the loving message it teaches the reader invalid because its fiction? Should we not allow our children to read that book because its “not real” despite it teaching your child a loving, peaceful, respectful and forgiving message about how to behave with others?
We allow our children to be taught using fiction every day during English lessons in school,because we understand the importance of the message.
How is the bible any different? Whether you believe it to be 100% true or 50% true or completely fictional makes NO difference because the entire message of the bible is relevant and important and something which a lot of people in this world would benefit from hearing.
But I get the impression a lot of people who are commenting here, have probably never even read the bible (front to back ) as I have (not because God demanded it, but because I wanted to learn myself about Christ instead of being dictated to by the church).
I expect a lot of people posting on here judge Christians by stereotypes they see in the street shouting “the world is ending”, or they have experienced the WRONG kind of service where a preacher stands there and says “you are damned for this….”, which is NOT true.
God does not condemn people to hell, EVER! He will always forgive… that was the point of Christs death. Any judgement on humanity will happen during revelations and even that is in question as to whether John was sain when he wrote that book.
Honestly… how many of you have ever took the time to actually read and study the entire bible? or sit down and talk to a normal Christian, because normal Christians DO NOT preach about damnation.
The point im making is that his death, or method of death, IS NOT important. As I said… Christ or God did not ask us to worship a cross or call ourselves Christians. We chose to do that… itwasnt a demand of God or law we had to follow.
But it doesnt devalue the message.
According to the article, a great many other things we think we know about the bible may have been grossly mistranslated and need to be rewritten.
As far as your message, love thy neighbor, you know, just because Jesus said it doesn’t mean it’s true or not true. It sounds like a good idea, does that make him a savior? You seem to be missing the point that many people do take the words in the bible quite literally, they may not think like you that it has ever been changed for purposes other than spreading it around the globe. It is people like you who defend your bible’s wisdom and divinity to us instead of THE REAL POINT. You seem to be a moderate/liberal Christian who accepts that the bible may have some parts open to interpretation, yet whose side are you on?
I see that you are battling atheists for pointing out another error in your bible rather than other Christians who will perceive that as an attack because they do think the bible is the literal word of god. Why do you not try to talk some sense into them? If there is a story in the bible you like, that’s fine, but don’t try to say that what it says doesn’t matter to everyone, just so long as the message gets through. Can you claim that the message gets through to all Christians? Or are you just being pedantic because someone pointed out a word may have been misunderstood, and snowballed into legend over 2 millennia? If it doesn’t matter what the bible says, it implies that the whole thing turns out to be buIIshit, you know, as in, it never happened, no god, no resurrection, just a story. The message is fine, but take care of your other Christians who take this a lot more seriously than we do.
Is it my responsibilty to hunt down every person who calls themselves a Christian, Catholica or what ever, who worships God and tell them they are preaching the word of God in a hateful way? No it isnt.
If you walk into a church and hear a service which rants on about “damnation” and “you’re going to hell” you simply walk out, and go to the next church along and see what message they preach.
You do that until you find a church you can relate to and a community of similar minded people. The same as you would if you were joining a book club, a gym, a school, a job or any aspect of your life.
I may not agree with how others interpret the bible, especially if they are preaching damnation and HELL, because the bible is NOT about that. But I would be a hypercrit to force my views on other Christians.
But just because I dont want to force those views, it doesnt mean I should be quiet and keep my mouth shut as so many people are told these days when concerning their religious perspectives.
I have the right to be outspoken about what I believe, but if that comes off as forcefull I apologise.
The issue I see here is that a great many people, when trying to argue AGAINST the bible, do exactly what you are arguing. They try to pick holes at every opportunity they can.
“Oh this doesnt make sense historically”, or “that could be translated in many different ways” or “does that passage mean this, or that?”… etc etc etc.
Now that is fine, because I support debate about my religion and hearing different perspectives. This is why I read the entire bible, and then moved onto fictional text like “The Shack” and the “Chronicles of Brothers”. It also why I plan to read the Quran once a work colleague can find me a true english translation.
I wish to study as much of Gods word as I can, and see it from as many perspectives as I can… both fictional and factually based.
But my experience of Athiest’s (and I dont suggest they are all this way) is that they tend to just Google paragraphs from the bible, for example from Deuteronomy, and then quote something about men controlling women…
….and yet they havent bothered to read the entire bible, and dont understand the context and how views changed. They just dont understand what they are quoting.
But does it matter to me whether the bible is 100% accurate… YES! I am one of few Christians that I know personally who are even aware of the “hidden books of the bible” and how a lot have been removed by the Church and that worries me.
That is why I try to educate friends who attend church about this, and make them realise there is more to God then what bible school on a Sunday told you.
Many people don’t even realise there is a book of Enoch which gives a lot more explanation as to why God (supposedly) flooded the earth. If they did, they would realise it wasn’t out of vengeful wrath… it was to rid the earth of a demonic infestation. Something which you’re just NOT taught in the movies, on TV or in the bible.
But despite whether I do believe the bible is 100% accurate, in my view… doesnt destroy the message of the bible.
If you look at the behaviour of a lot of teenagers now, who are binge drinking, having casual sex, becoming pregnant at a young age, carrying weapons, swearing, fighting, commiting crimes….
…if you knew that raising you’re own child (who you love dearly) in a Christian environment and teaching them to respect their bodies and each other may help to prevent them going down that path, would you not take that opportunity?
I’m not suggesting God is the ultimately solution to stopping our kids from being brats, because they have free will and a choice, but reinforcing them with a message saying “love each other, and believe in a God who eternally love you back regardless of what you do and will always forgive you” is not going to do them harm.
Do it matter to me how Christ died… no. The bible suggest he was either crucified or hung… what does it mattter? it doenst in my view because I respect christ for his ACTIONS and his BEHAVIOUR and how he set an example to humanity as a good person, and giving his life for us. Whether that life was on a cross or a tree, or whether he wasnt really even Gods son… he was a good man and did good things.
What are you on about?
Nobody asked you to do that. But you have come to an atheist site to read and post in response to an article by telling us that WE’VE missed the point and are interpreting your bible wrong. So that at least tells us you have the energy to hunt some people down and correct them about your religion.
I’m sorry, but you missed the point of the article, or rather, you are martyring yourself over it even though it seems it was describing the reaction of another sort of Christian. You label yourself a “normal Christian,” well that deserves another explanation altogether, but it’s irrelevant. There are no “normal” Christians.
Si, most people here know far better the bible than most Christians do.
And especially those nut-job Christians that rejects evolution interpret the bible literally. They even believe that hell is real and Satan does exist.
If you walk into a church and hear a service which rants on about “damnation” and “you’re going to hell” you simply walk out, and go to the next church along and see what message they preach.
But, to put it shortly, if the message of the book on balance encourages people to act like asshats, at pretty much the same rate as every other message on Earth, why should we consider this one particularly “good” or “special”?
If the Bible is a tool used by God to communicate to us humans about the oughts and wherefores of living on this Earth in a Godly way, why is it it can be as easily used for evil as good? Why is the godly instrument no better than any other in this regard?
It matters to Mel Gibson.
“Normal Christians”? No true scotsman. We’re talking about Christians, you might not be a real one since you don’t think this story applies to your faith.
If you read a book like “The Shack” which is completely fictional and made up, is the loving message it teaches the reader invalid because its fiction?
No, it’s invalid because it’s poorly written and poorly argued. But nevermind.
Alright, let’s be civil about this. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not find Jesus to be much better than the philosophers and rabbis that surrounded him in his era. Granted, he’s more accessible – since we’ve spent 2,000 years translating and re-translating his message. But I don’t find him any more impressive.
And the meaning of his sacrifice is baffling. There are a dozen or so forms of soteriology. With most, one has to accept a certain view of God before one can even start with it. That view is underpinned by a series of sheer assertions. To one who has not already emotionally accepted it, it is sheer folly.
Honestly… how many of you have ever took the time to actually read and study the entire bible?
You’d be surprised. I find that atheists are frequently more biblically literate than believers. Many believers only get the predigested selections that make for good sermons and ignore the rest. Atheists actually care enough to study the thing in all of its detail.
And a few of us trained to be priests/pastors.
Read what I originally posted and you might work that one out.
Wow, kind of an asshat, aren’t you?
Nothing you’ve written yet has been particularly useful or perceptive, so a reread probably won’t add anything.
@ Si
“How is whether he died on a cross on a tree important? Explain how that has any majorimpact on the message which God/Christ tries to give us through the bible?”
I agree that how he died may not be a big deal(to you at least). However, if they got that wrong, what else could be wrong, completely fabricated or embellished with fiction?
“…I also have no doubt the Church has changed small parts here and there to benefit themselves.”
So how can you be sure you are following Jesus’s or your god’s message?
“Does that devalue the VERY simple message of love they neighbour which Jesus states as the second most important law? No it doesnt.”
Well, if I was to ignore the parts where Jesus wasn’t exactly loving his neighbour, how can you be sure Jesus actually said that – and not some pacifist scribe fabricating scripture for his own organisations benefit?
“(not because God demanded it, but because I wanted to learn myself about Christ instead of being dictated to by the church).”
Now, you’ve already stated that you have no doubt he Church has changed scripture to benefit themselves. If that’s the case, then it’s very probably you’re still being dictated to by the church; after all, you can’t be sure what texts are wrong, completely fabricated or embellished with fiction.
“God does not condemn people to hell, EVER! He will always forgive… that was the point of Christs death.”
But doesn’t scripture say that blaspheming the holy ghost is an UNFORGIVABLE sin? Matthew 12:31-32
And didn’t Jesus condemn the populous of entire cities to hell – just because they didn’t care to hear his words or receive his disciples. Matthew 11:21-24 & Luke 10:10-15
Hmmm.. maybe you’re wrong or we can’t be sure either way because the book could be wrong, completely fabricated or embellished with fiction.
“Any judgement on humanity will happen during revelations and even that is in question as to whether John was sain when he wrote that book.”
Yet more reason to not trust or believe a word the bible has to say.
On the subject of damnation… from everything I understand about it, from what i’ve read and this is just my perspective on it… God does forgive all things we do. Everything.
How ever its written that people will be sentence to hell on the day of judgement if they do not accept God through Christ (i.e revelations) after God/Christ ressurrects all those who died and judges them along with the living.
But revelations was written by John and some question whether its a true message and not the ramblings of a crazey man.
But until revelations comes about, God does forgive all and gives us an endless chance to become better people through that forgiveness. Im not trying to suggest it all makes sense, and some may call me a none-true christian because I question my own faith, but you have to interpret it all how you wish to in my view.
As long as it makes you feel better about your own life, and you dont hurt others.. i dont see how it matters how you view the bible and God.
I just basically dont care how Jesus died, as its the message I care about.
According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, blaspheming the holy Spirit is absolutely unforgivable. So who is right – you or the Bible?
Well, this is an easy yet complicated question. Perhaps it means that after you die, you cannot be redeemed for it, and perhaps it means just as it says. It is hard to determine the actual absolute meaning, since we have to interpret it our own way, and humain understanding is limited. The bible says not to rely on our own understanding, yet right now, it seems we cannot do anything else. All we can do is interpret as best we can, and see wo’s right in the end.
It’s only complicated by trying to interpret a faulty and unclear directive as if it’s divine and sacred. If the bible says not to rely on your own understanding, it also seems to follow that it would want for you to stay confused about it, and uncertain whether you’re doing whatever they (whoever wrote it) wants you to do. If god wrote it, he’s a moron. If people a long time ago wrote it, they’re dead now and they don’t care what you do. I mean, would a sensible person forfeit their sense to believe in a god who wants them to feel confused and uncertain either for his own self-serving attitude or because he can’t put together a coherent directive, or would a sensible person reject that concept?
Come on. Easy, not hard.
@Anonymous:
Matt. 12:32: “…whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
I think that’s a pretty explicit statement, leaving little room for interpretation. But apparently you want to cast doubt on it (does it make you uncomfortable that God/Jesus does not forgive some sins?). Well, that’s your choice, but it leaves me with the question: if you can’t take a statement as explicit as that at face value then what the heck can we derive from the Bible?
Well…….stop blaspheming then!
@trj: (does it make you uncomfortable that God/Jesus does not forgive some sins?)
No, the fact that a bronze age book of myths says that their invisible sky daddy doesn’t forgive me talking about the invisible sky daddy, his kid or this holy ghost thingy really doesn’t bother me. Do you worry about offending Zeus or Ba’al? Are you affraid Thor will smite you with his hammer? They are just as real as your invisible sky daddy. Sins are crimes against an imaginary being who is best described by his actions as a dangerous and vicious psychopathic three year old. Not something that I take seriously. Try giving up your fantasy world for a week and see if you begin to see life differently. And before you ask, I already tried your way and I got over it.
@objectifier:
I think you confuse me for a believer. I refer to God/Jesus only for the sake of argument.
@trj. my apologies. I like your “argument”. I guess my exuberance in arguing against blind faith(stupidity) often gets the best and worst out of me.
This is getting really confusing now…
@trj……I agree with you 100%! Confusion is troublesome, isn’t it?
‘my exuberance in arguing against blind faith (stupidity)’
What you call stupidity is actually a child-likeness, a severe trust in the Paternal, in the nature of the Father and is the very (paradoxical) means, entrance into the present reality of the kingdom in the here and now.
This past weekend my little granddaughter called me and asked me ‘what you doin’ tonight Gandad? (she’s still workin’ on the letter ‘R’, ha). And to which I responded ‘I’m going to….’ and as soon as she heard that immediately (before I finished my sentence, before I could even tell her where I was headed) she interrupted me saying ‘I wanna go too, I wanna go WITH YOU Gandad’. Blind faith, childlike trust, yes that is it, that is the key! She will gladly follow me wherever I go because she knows how much I love her, that I would never place her in harms way. But to the adult, rational, reasoning mind this ‘blind faith’ is offensive, is a ‘stupidity’ yet is that which sets us so very free indeed, oh the liberty. The kingdom is a paradox, a beautiful paradox.
You have not been orphaned (spiritually speaking), you only ‘think’ you have because you’re all grown up, get it? It’s too simple I know. When it comes to God (Love) we are far too complex, Love is ultimately a simplicity, a child-likeness.
“So, like a forgotten fire, a childhood can always flare up again within us”.
Gaston Bachelard/1884-1962 (French Philosopher)
@John C. The problem is thinking with our minds and not our hearts. Atheists and theists will argue until the last breath of air is gone….what then? Is this our fate, to battle each other without ever putting away our differences? I will eventually give up the mind all together very shortly and think with my heart. Arguing on this blog is useless, everybody has already closed their minds to other possibilities outside of theism and atheism. The authors who wrote of Jesus, refered to him symbolically as love manifested. It is very much up to the individual to get to know god, personally and privately. This is what christianity was supposed to be about, but throughout the last 1,800 years it has been corrupted to the stage that no one even tries to live by the example the symbolic jesus said. It is time to remove the bookmark on this site and move on.
Sorry you won’t read this, but what?
There is either a god or there isn’t. It isn’t likely. I don’t see the world through your eyes and see something that is between 2 opposite, binary things. Atheism is not a religion. It is to tell someone who believes in magic that there is no magic. You want to model your life off of Jesus Christ even though you say you are an atheist as well. You can’t seem to get over that it’s not for everyone, especially when the book has caused so much harm. Whatever lives we live that may cross paths with your philosophies, we don’t generally say ‘we are atheists, but Jesus was a great role model.’ So everyone read this book anyway, you’re sure to get some great lessons out of it! No matter how many times you say it, nobody is going to live like you do. If anything, that’s religious talk – magical belief that if we model off the good things Jesus said, if believers and atheists alike would just RTFM…. that’s what you seem to go around and around thinking we should all do.
With or without a god, saying all the answers are with one guy in one book and it will save your life the way it saved mine, etc. and so on. Good for you, but eh. That’s religious talk.
Well, that’s what everyone does, and they all come up with something different, from the same book. You sincerely believe in a god who lets you decide how you’re going to get to heaven or not?
If there were a god, I would suggest he clear that up, so everyone had a fair shot, or else, well, the lack of clarity in his message suggests it’s not his message because he doesn’t exist. There’s no evidence for god, just a book that doesn’t lay it out so everyone knows exactly what’s what, so that it’s up for personal interpretations at will, i.e., god is made into whatever you want, i.e., altogether invented by humans to suit their personal comfort levels.
I guess you missed the point: an attack on Christianity was implied by the author of the quoted portion, and Gunnar Samuelsson has had to defend his research against people who insist it was a cross, a cross, not anything but a cross.
….
He goes on further to say that it might have been a crucifixion, but the biblical Greek is not specific. The vague suspension has been inferred as crucifixion and preserved as canon for no reason.
Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean this isn’t perceived by others as an attack on your faith, just like so many get their panties in a wad because “You can be good without god,” or take a cheery and inclusive “Happy Holidays” as an attack on the celebration of the birthday of your infant savior.
Do you know how hanging on the cross kills a person? The weight of only the arms holding you up above your head suffocates you over the course of a few days. It is extremely painful. So knowing this, “hanging” in not an inaccurate word to describe what being on the cross in like. More over, while Jesus was on the cross, one of the men there “impaled” Jesus Christ in the side with a spear. OUCH!
The thing about Jesus was that he was mortally wounded before hanging on the cross, insomuch that he bled from every pour, that he actually died early on the cross. He commended his spirit up unto God when he was ready to depart.
So JC got the easy way out compared to others who were crucified, so much for the whole sacrifice thing.
You think being beaten to near-death with a lead-tipped whip, and then forced to wear a crown made of thorns was easy for him? How about carrying a large cross on his back up a mountain on his openly-wounded back? Then, he still was hanged and given the immense pain of actually being put up there. And then, he hanged for a long while, and died. Sacrifice is there, you just have to be open enough to see it.
So let’s see, jeebus went through all you described which lasted for a couple of hours. Not very pleasant. Yet our punishment for not believing in fairy tales is an eternity in a lake of fire. If hell were real, I’d take a couple of hours of being crucified rather than an eternity in a lake of fire.
Guess jeebus’ sacrifice isn’t all that impressive.
Other than the crown of thorns, most people who were crucified suffered all he did, but for them it generally lasted longer and then was topped off with having their legs broken to try to hasten their death once the Romans got bored. So yes, Jesus (assuming he existed) got off easy, in comparison to those who died the same way, and I can think of plenty of even worse ways to die that have occurred to unfortunate people. The idea that it had to be done specifically this way makes god seem both unfair and arbitrary.
Sounds like a garden-variety guilt-tripping martyr to me. Perhaps you missed the phrase “compared to” in the earlier post. There is no proof that the “sacrifice” or being put to death serves any purpose other than you are persuaded by it to worship the guy. He just got executed like the others, and you don’t consider them saviors. Jesus claims to be your salvation, but being a martyr and saving souls are drastically different things, the latter having no basis in the former except that he said so and you like to believe it.
“… part of me is morbidly curious as to what would have happened to early Christianity if Jesus had been impaled through the anus …”
That would make a rather different thing to wear around your neck than a crucifix, or to make a big statue of to put out in front of your church building. But at least fewer people would have taken them seriously.
Maybe it would also have better fitted in with the practices of certain priests.
But at least fewer people would have taken them seriously.
Nietzsche wrote (I sure have been quoting him a lot lately) that the main function of the cross is that it is a picturesque death; one easy to render and even easier to dramatize. If Jesus had been hung, or impaled, there is a real chance that without this psychological/propaganda leg-up that the crucifixion brings to the table, Christianity would have been another doomed minor cult.
So in a way it is an attack on Christianity, just an inadvertent one.
Symbols are potent. That’s why the use of logos is so prevalent in modern society. Where would we be without those symbols of product identification. The cross is in a sense the simplest if not the first logo. A circle is perhaps simpler but can represent a number of different things, so it is not immediately associable with a particular institution or product. Likewise a single line would not make a good logo. But once you have two lines that cross, you have a symbol. Christianity chose the most basic of logos and I think that has a lot to do with its influence. Those crossmarks are immediately identifiable with a particular product and this recognizability facilitated its marketing as sure as the modified cross facilitated the marketing of Chevrolet.
I still prefer the Jesus fish to the cross/crucifix. Seems less morbid, somehow. I think the symbols people choose to emphasize indicate something about the subject they emphasize; the suffering of Jesus seems to loom so much larger than, say, the feeding of the multitude, or the calling of the disciples to service.
It is morbid. Given the history of Christianity, appropriately so. Another mass appeal the Christian cross has apart from being about the most fundamental symbols in the human lexicon is that it is also a basic representation of the human form, the vertical axis being longer at the bottom. Also appropriate since God was a man.
…allegedly.
They will rebuild the touchdown jesus, and I will never looked at it the same way…
Mind you, it could explain why we have a figure (for example, an angel) on the top of the Christmas tree.
If the founding iconography of Christianity was Jesus taking it up the ass, perhaps the Church’s take on sex would have been a bit different. Sodomy might have become a holy act.
So does this mean that Mel Gibson is going to have to do a Passion of the Christ sequel?
FSM forbid…
Die Harder: Passion of the Christ 2.
Now in theaters.
Lethaler Weapon vs. Rocky 3 – I’m gonna torture him. I’m gonna impale him through the anus. Real bad.
GHANDI II
“He’s back…and this time he’s got a gun!”
I’m also stumped by the “attack”. Apparently everything that is been said, or done is being analyzed and perceived as an attack on Christianity. Some even go so far as to speak of persecution! There sure is some collective Christian paranoia going on.
For the topic itself – well let’s say Jesus actually lived and he was hanged – the whole cross symbolism would fall apart. And Christians would have to start wearing a noose around their neck. Pun intended.
Fundies taking offense at imaginary attacks is nothing new. PZ Myers had a post yesterday about the reaction of some Indian muslims to imagined attack on our old buddy Mo . A college lecturer gave a question on a test in a language class asking the students to add punctuation to a paragraph. The paragraph was about an old fish monger named Mohammad (one of the most common names in the world), nowhere in the text was it even hinted that said Mohammad is the prophet of islam. However some local fundies took offense and chopped the guys hand off, which I would consider a bit of an overreaction.
Personally, as a Christian, it doesn’t matter how he died either. Just that he died for me. Some argue over if it was really a cross or a pole. The architecture of the wooden structure makes no difference to me.
What do we make of the gospel writers who talked about the nail marks in his hands though?
Personally, as a Christian, it doesn’t matter how he died either.
Fair enough. As I said, no matter how many in the media are trying to spin it, this isn’t an attack. Samuelsson considers himself a conservative Christian, after all.
This is a purely historical point that need not bother anyone who doesn’t care for such things.
What do we make of the gospel writers who talked about the nail marks in his hands though?
Good question. I know that Samuelsson didn’t tackle the letters of Paul, so the Pauline quote about nails is still open.
Who’s in for a bit of etymology and history?
The entry for “Cross” on the Greek Wikipedia has more information of the etymology and history of the word. Allow me to give you the gist:
The word “ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ” /stahv-ROSS/ has the same root as the verb “ΙΣΤΗΜΙ” (=to stand). The same root is used to produce the word “ΣΤΥΛΟΣ” (=pole).
The world “ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ” is encountered for the first time in both the Illiad and the Odyssey and was used to described poles driven to the ground for house-building. Herodotus and Thucydedes both use the word to describe the poles used to make a wooden palisade. Both Thucydedes and Xenophon also use the word to describe a method of execution by impalement (the victim being placed on the tip of the pole and gravity slowly doing its bloody work).
For starters, this Swedish guys seems to have read his history properly.
I then wondered what the ancient Greeks actually call a cross? The only reference I found is that the Pythagoreans called the greek cross (2 equal lines crossing at the center) a “ΤΕΤΡΑΚΤΥΣ” (four rays).
There is also another issue. The latin word for cross is “CRUX”. I couldn’t find the etymology of the latin word, but it doesn’t look like it has anything to do etymologically with “ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ”. The way it looks to me is the word “ΣΤΑΥΡΟΣ” was used to translate the latin “CRUX” (after all the Greeks didn’t really use crucifixion as an execution method, so it makes sense they created a word for something they became familiar with later on).
The real question which IMO Gunnar Samuelsso should have addressed is: “If Jesus died on a CRUX, was that a cross?”
On a sidenote, you’re correct about the word “ΤΕΚΤΩΝ” /tekton/. It generally means “mason”, “builder” (and is actually the word used in modern Greek for Freemasons). Apart for giving birth to “techical” etc, a more obvious word is “ΑΡΧΙΤΕΚΤΩΝ” (architekton, architect = head builder).
I know that at least the JW’s believe that Jesus was hung on a pole instead of a cross, because of the word Stauros. Still had nails in his hands and feet, just nailed onto a vertical pole.
To me it really doesn’t matter. As a Christian, I believe Jesus died for me. The “how” isn’t so important. And I could care less if he was a carpenter or a landscaper lol.
Good read.
Of course it would matter little HOW Jesus died, to a Christian, but it’s an interesting linguist and hermeneutic subject, nonetheless.
But of course, you can see how it can be a problem for those who have been peddling pieces of the “real” cross Jesus died upon for over two millennia. With all the wood that has been sold as genuine “holy wood” one would think that Jesus was indeed nailed to a palisade :P (I was raised Orthodox, in case you didn’t guess).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Homenic and classical Greek
In its original meaning, “the Greek word for cross, [stau•ros′], 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.”[2] As stated in “The Cross and the Crucifixion” appendix, The Companion Bible (1922), in Liddell and Scott , and in many other works of reference, Homer (about one thousand years before the time when the gospels were written) used the word os of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber; and this was the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics (four or five centuries before the time of the gospels). In the literature of that time it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone
Christ was nailed to and crucified on a stake. Not impaled. The 2 stick cross, a profane symbol that has been widely used by many pagan religions was a more desirable article to sell than just a single stick.
staurós is an upright “stake” such as is used in fences or palisades.
The staurós is an instrument of torture for serious offenses. It may be a vertical pointed stake, an upright with a cross-beam above it, or a post with an intersecting beam of equal length.*
*Kittel, Gerhard ; Friedrich, Gerhard ; Bromiley, Geoffrey William: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 1995, c1985, S. 1071
Some words in Greek do not translate to English exactly word for word. The same goes for Spanish, French, and every other language. There are semantic domains which give us a range of meaning. Look up any word in the dictionary, and you’ll notice that there are multiple entries which chronicle the semantic domain of the word.
What makes the most sense is the definition which fits best into the author’s intent, purpose, or, in this case, the only definition which really makes sense from a historical perspective. In the crucifixion narrative, the standard method of crucifixion practiced by the Romans fits the traditional view that Jesus was pierced though the hands (or wrists) and through his feet, causing shock and eventual asphyxiation (which is why the centurions broke the legs of the other 2 criminals being crucified – they wouldn’t be able to lift themselves up, thus speeding up the process so the Jews wouldn’t be mad that people were hanging overlooking Jerusalem on the Passover).
Stauros indicates the first definition, but it also indicates the second definition, which fits the method of execution during the first century.
that’s the other thing that strikes me about this… Jesus died too fast to be crucified, according to everything I’ve heard.
So….Jesus was hung? He would have been a hit in the gay bars of the day! If he had gone there, I’m quite sure he would have been impaled. The cross doesn’t fit in unless he was into sado/masochism.My goodness, a hung man being impaled and whipped……wait….I’ve seen that porno film! I do believe Mel Gibson got it all wrong with “The Passion(no kidding) of the Christ”. Jesus as gay warrior. I think I really believe now.
I suppose the dudes following him around were a bit of a clue… ;)
Do you mean the all male fan club and the one fag-hag: Mary?
Totally.
There’s a problem with Samuelsson’s position, and I find it remarkable he didn’t notice it himself. That problem is found in the story of “Doubting Thomas” (John 20:24-28 or thereabouts). This passage specifically mentions “nail prints” (in the Greek, τυπο&nu των ηλων or tupon tón élón), and mentions wounds in Jesus’ hands. Neither of these make any sense, had Jesus been impaled or hung.
That Jesus had been “nailed” to a cross is also mentioned in Acts and Colossians, so it does go back a long way in Christianity’s history, aside just from the gospel of John.
As for CNN’s claim that Samuelsson had “attacked” Christianity, that’s ridiculous hyperbole. Whether the guy is right or wrong, this was no “attack.” CNN has no business using this exaggerated military language, where this matter is concerned.
Hmm. Looks like I missed a closing semicolon on one of my Greek HTML entities. Sorry!
well, John is a later account and almost certainly not eye-witness.
Well, none of the other gospels is an “eyewitness” account, either. The issue here is what early Christians thought was Jesus’ manner of death. Clearly by the end of the 1st century, they believed he’d been crucified, not impaled.
Also, keep in mind that Samuelsson is using the gospels … again, none of which is an “eyewitness” account … to support his view. That one of them directly contradicts it, would seem significant, to me.
I’ve heard this idea before. If he was tried by Jewish authorities, why would they sentence him to death by crucifixion if the OT prescribes hanging as the penalty for blasphemy?
Remember this important fact: whether if Jesus was impaled, hung, or crucified, he still died for us. He is still our savior.
This scholar you are are talking about is not a wise man although he is knowledgeable by the world’s terms. His knowledge is most likely interfering with his faith because he does not realize that worldly knowledge without faith is void. Or in other words, this man thinks he knows what he’s talking about, but in actuality he doesn’t because he has no faith in Jesus Christ.
He “died” for the Jews who followed the Law of Moses. The Law was never meant for Gentiles, therefore unless you are Jewish, the sacrifice was worthless. Jesus may have been a saviour for the Jews but NOT for those not of the Jewish faith. Your argument would not survive against what the apostle Paul wrote. He chastised Peter for forcing Jewish beliefs on the non-Jewish believers. I suggest you convert to Judaism and then Jesus can be your saviour. By the way, where in the New testament does Jesus actually say that he is THE saviour?
Please forgive me, but I hope somebody who thinks Jesus is a saviour, would satisfy my curiosity.
Actually throughout the OT and NT you see statements like: “And I will pour out my spirit on all people” “The Holy One of Israel will save the Gentiles” etc. The entire book of Romans seems to make clear that to God, it doesn’t matter if you’re Jew or Greek/Gentile.
Jesus was the Messiah first to the Jews, God’s chosen people, but when they rejected him he left to go to the Gentiles. While he lived Jesus said much the same thing. That the children would not listen so he’d go to the dogs, ie…gentiles lol
Paul chastised Peter for being a hypocrite, not for forcing his views on someone haha. Peter was hanging out with the Gentiles and then when the jews showed up he ran away because he was afraid of the Jews. This is what Paul was chastising him for.
And as people have quoted, Christ and his followers claimed he was to be the single savior of the world. “No one who has not seen me has seen the father” “There is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved” etc.
Cool article! I like it! I’m a fundamental Christian for the most part too. I take the Bible literally but different than some. It’s good for Christians to really listen to arguments like these. If we just blindly take our faith….we’re just a bunch of idiots with wishful thinking. I for one will gladly change my views if proven false. Christ never called us to accept him as truth just because and never doubt regardless of the evidence. Rather, he called us to seek out truth. And that’s what I do. So, it’s important to understand all view points. That’s somewhere the Church needs to step up. Know the Bible in detail and understand other religions etc as well. Not to get a “Better view of God” but to know if what you believe, is really real.
Thanks for posting!
Michael-
To say “He “died” for the Jews who followed the Law of Moses. The Law was never meant for Gentiles, therefore unless you are Jewish, the sacrifice was worthless”, is asinine. Over and over again he states he is the only salvation for mankind. That only He can remove the sin that condemns mankind to death and He only can give eternal life. Atheist and believers alike agree that is what He is claiming in the passages of The New Testament. To say he never said he was THE savior is just semantics.
A. He Claimed that Men Can Have Fellowship with God and Eternal Life Only through Him.
John 14:6 – I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.
John 3:13-15 – Jesus claimed He came down from heaven so that whoever believes in Him can have eternal life. [6:40]
John 10:27-29 – My sheep hear my voice and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
B. Jesus Claimed that He Came to Save Mankind from Sin.
Mark 2:3-12; Luke 7:48,49 – Jesus claimed to have power to directly forgive sins. This is a work only God can do.
Matthew 20:28 – He came to give His life a ransom for many.
Matthew 26:28 – He shed His blood for many for remission of sins.
John 8:24 – People who do not believe in Him will die in their sins.
[Luke 24:47; John 1:29,36; 12:47]
Sorry….the New Testament is not the word of god! None of the gospel writers were there when jesus supposedly died nor did they know him. All was written well after and the writers fashioned jesus into some kind of saviour/messiah. He was neither. Even the apostle Paul(a Gnostic) recognized the story of jesus as entirely symbolic of our own journey to enlightment through the christ/spirit. Hauling out verses, out of context, is a clear sign that you are not guided by the christ/spirit. Your argument is utterly worthless. Try again.
Paul was agnostic? I had no idea!
He, wasn’t. I think Michael believes Pope John Paul II wrote all those books in The New Testament.
My statement is that the Bible says Jesus is the savior. Yet you say that Jesus did not say he was the savior. From your comments and statements, it is very obvious you have no idea what is written in the Bible. As for the authenticity of the Books of the Bible and there authors, you once again just spit out conjecture. Here is one for you: there is no proof that your great,great, great,great,great,great,great, great, great, great, great Grandfather ever new your Grandmother at that time, Can’t find it anywhere in the history records, therefore you do not exist. Yet Jesus has been talked about discussed, debated,worshiped and written about more that any other person ever born since his death. Yea, that is sure evidence that he never existed.
Evidence out of one book? Are you nuts? Surely you must have more historical evidence than what it says in just one book! The bible is fiction!
Little problem with logic there.
I know that my great-(great)^n-grandparents met because I’m here. There’s no other natural mechanism found to produce a new organism other than reproduction (and in this case, as a mammal, sexual reproduction at that) We know how genes are transferred in organisms and I can even look into my own DNA to determine what medical conditions I could be predisposed to. We could even determine what parts of the world those ancestors most likely came from. That’s science, and it’s awesome. Predictable models, analyzing evidence, really really cool stuff.
Jesus on the other hand, is only talked about discussed, debated, worshiped, etc. outside of one source. We know from archeology that there were many rabbi/prophet/cult-leaders roaming that part the world at that time claiming to have knowledge of, or even to be the messiah. We however have no evidence from contemporary sources that there was a single one of these figures named Jesus that did all the things claimed in the NT and was killed by the Romans. It’s not that it’s evidence that he DIDN’T exist, it’s that there’s no evidence that he did.
See the difference? You need evidence to support a statement, not the lack thereof. There’s no evidence for or against the historical Jesus, so the default position must be that he didn’t exist UNTIL you (the one making the claim) provide us with it.
You are only words on page to all of us here. You say you know about your Grandparents and you exist but what proof do you have for us that you truly exist? What DNA evidence can you provide that you are not a figment of Daniel’s imagination? Even if you provided a birth certificate and a SS# how do we know they are not fake or forgery’s(myths). Is this not the same arguments you are putting forth for the nonexistence of Jesus. The Bible is a document put forth that he would be born, that he was born and that he exist but you deny that document as well as all other writings that speak of Him. So is it logical to say you exist when you have not provided any documentation to prove such statement? You don’t believe, that is fine but others do. There is still 2 sides to the argument regardless as to which side of the argument you believe.
Yea, that’s what I thought
Daniel Florine = coffeejedi
FYI
For your information… you’re an idiot.
No seriously, I’m not Daniel (and you didn’t even get his last name right)
I don’t believe you. There’s no evidence for or against your existence, so the default position must be that you do not exist UNTIL you (the one making the claim) provide us with it.
Are you stupid? Although I do not have it on hand, I think there is evidence for coffeejedi’s existence. You can be skeptical for now, but people are usually evidence for their own existence. Not believing until you see it is not the same as no evidence. There is no evidence Jesus Christ existed. Characters in stories generally do not exist in reality; although he may have existed and been historical. It is unknown. There are arguments for his existence but nothing solid confirming. coffeejedi, on the other hand, is probably a person, and holds evidence of that. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’d even prove it to you if you want to make an issue out of it, so you may remain skeptical but idiotic.
The fact is also a given, that if he’s a person, his g^35-grandfather and g^35-grandmother would have had to have intimate relations, or do you want to prove that people magically appear in a cabbage patch from the stork now? You can believe that if it suits you better, but I think you can’t prove Jesus existed by denying a real person’s existence. You can’t say there’s no evidence when there’s likely a lot of evidence you just aren’t privy to.
“Daniel Florine = coffeejedi”
Fail. In my experience sock-puppets are usually theists.
That’s his logic not mine. You can testify for coffeejedi, you can write about him and you can even go down to Main Street and erect a building to worship him but I still will not believe in his existence. To me he is just a myth, made up by Daniel to push his point of view. There is no evidence he is or ever was a real person. You can believe that if it suits you better, but I think you can’t prove coffeejedi exist by denying Jesus real existence. You can’t say there’s no evidence about Jesus when there’s likely a lot of evidence, other than the Holy Bible, Churchs and individual testimony, that you just aren’t privy to. But even if coffeejedi really is a person, you would have me to believe that upon faith seeing that there is no evidence for me to know, without a doubt, that he is real. Well with your logic, how in the world can I be expected to do that?
Oh my frakking FSM,
It’s like you half-remember a little bit of philosphy 101 and watched the Matrix a few times and now you think you’re clever. “What IS real maaaaaan?”
Of course, you’re also ignoring the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That I’m not Daniel and am a real person named Matt is a very modest claim. Google me. That doesn’t require extraordinary evidence.
Claiming that an invisible sky-fairy turned himself into his own zombified son 2000 years ago to save these invisible things you claim exist called ‘souls’ is a pretty extraordinary claim. You’re going to have to do a hell of a lot better than a bronze-age book of goat-herder folklore to convince us. And no, just because a lot of other people believe it and talk about it a lot does NOT lend it any more credibility.
Where do you get that Gunnar Samuelsson has no faith in Jesus Christ? Because studying the language of the bible was important to him, and … I mean, I don’t get your whole assertion. You seem to be jumping to conclusions and didn’t read the whole article, or you actually do feel as though studying language (being earthly knowledgeable) is not in keeping with faith, i.e., the truth doesn’t matter to you and it shouldn’t matter to anyone what the divine bible actually says, they should just wish and believe and be simple and not think, like you.
From the article, for the people who don’t click on links or who don’t read all the way to the end of things:
Kitty Mrow, you assert many things, but you are dumb.
Kitty Mrow’s magic jesus voices are telling her THE TRUE™ which is much better then our mundane everyday facts.
Kitty Mrow, on the one hand you say “Remember this important fact: whether if Jesus was impaled, hung, or crucified, he still died for us. He is still our savior,” but then you say, “This scholar you are are talking about is not a wise man although he is knowledgeable by the world’s terms.”
In other words … on the one hand you state that the exact manner of Jesus’ death does not matter, while on the other, you condemn a man who claims Jesus died in an unorthodox way.
I find it necessary to ask, which is the case? If the precise manner of death truly does not matter, then why condemn Samuelsson? If it does matter enough that you condemn the alternative theory, then your claim that his manner of death doesn’t matter, cannot actually be true — apparently it DOES matter to you.
I suspect the most valid theological point here is your first claim — that the manner of death doesn’t matter. Call me simple-minded, but if the point of Christianity is that Jesus died for us, then the fact that he died, is obviously much more significant than his manner of death. But the latter claim — that Samuelsson’s alternative theory is “destructive” and damnably heretical — is the one Christians will tend to react emotionally to, because their feeling of connection to Jesus is through the image of him having been crucified (as opposed to impaled or something else). Thus, as usual when it comes to anything religious, we’re seeing emotion being viewed as more important than any other consideration. Even if it should be the last thing on people’s minds.
I have to wonder if it’s not time for Christians to grow the hell up and stop screaming at each other — and at non-Christians and the non-religious — over their silly little emotional compulsions. That’s the sort of thing small children do … i.e. stamp their feet and throw tantrums when their feelings are hurt. Grown adults, on the other hand, are capable of accepting that others disagree with them, and move on.
Hey…..who cares how he died…..can’t we be happy in the fact that he is DEAD? He sinned, blasphemed and was dutifully and fatally silenced. Some crazy part of christian belief states that after death, Jesus went to hell for three days. How anybody picked this juicy bit of news is beyond me, but only sinners go to hell. Ergo: Jesus wasn’t perfect, he was a sinner and HE IS DEAD! Now can we all get on with living?
It’s the Orthodox Christians who say that and he didn’t descend to Hell, but Hades (apparently Hell didn’t contain any human souls before the resurrection). He went to Hades and taught to the dead, so no one could have an excuse of not having heard his message. Standard Orthodox iconography portray Jesus standing on the broken gates of Hades (often with the personification of Death bound under him), drawing Adam and Eve from their graves. (example icon)
Not that the Orthodox have less nuttiness than other Christians, but your statement was inaccurate.
EvanT-
Your statements are inaccurate as well.
Hades is the Greek word traditionally used for the Hebrew word Sheol. In the King James Bible, the Old Testament term Sheol is translated as “Hell” 31 times. However, Sheol was translated as “the grave” 31 other times. Sheol is also translated as “the pit” three times.
Jesus said the only sign he would give for proving he was the Messiah was the sign of Jonah. “Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.” (Matthew 12:
38-40).
Meaning he died, was in the grave 3 days and three nights before His resurrection. He was not alive in Hell (Gehenna), the place where the wicked will perish.
But that nixes the Harrowing of Hell, which is, like, the coolest part of the story!
Or, if Jesus Christ and the Bible are to be believed, Hell will be the hottest place in town.
If Jesus Christ and the Bible are to be believed, illness is caused by demons who, with the right holy mojo, can be cast out into convenient swine.
Moral of the story: Jesus Christ and the Bible are not to be believed.
“He went to Hades and taught to the dead,”
“Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
I hope he didn’t teach them math.
No, the Catholics, the Protestants, and many others got that one wrong all on their own. Even most 1st graders can tell you Friday afternoon to Sunday morning does not add up 3 days and 3 nights.
It doesn’t, but according to Jesus (whom the quote is from) it does. Or maybe he really didn’t like Hell/Hades/Sheol/New Jersey and decided to leave a day early?
I have never read were Jesus said he would die on Friday and be resurrected on Sunday. Where is that found?
Jesus said he would be raised in three days. According to the bible, his death took place on a Friday (the day of preparation for the Sabbath) and he was awake by Sunday morning (the day after the Sabbath). That’s two nights he spent being dead, at odds with his earlier statement.
JohnMWhite-
You are wrong. The Sabbath that is being referred to is the high day of The Feast Of Unleavened Bread. Jesus held his last supper the night of the 14th of Abib the next day being the Passover( the Jews celebrate the Passover on the 15th of Abib, ) He was condemned and crucified. You will need to look up the Holy days of God to fully understand what I am saying. Jesus was crucified on the 15th of Abib, a Wednesday. The next day (Thursday) was a Sabbath high day that started The Feast Of Unleavened Bread. Friday was a preparation day for the weekly Sabbath held on Saturdays. There were 2 Sabbath days that week on the Jewish calender. This is why the women did not get to the tomb until Sunday. When they did arrive they were told he has risen not that he is rising.
Jesus was sacrificed on Passover Day, This coincides with the scriptures referring to Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World” and many others calling him the Lamb. Funny how most religions just skip over that important fact and make up there own holidays and puts Christ name on them.
This could be the case. Perhaps Jesus can count after all.
Wait, I just checked something. I thought I remembered from mass that it definitely appeared in the narrative that there was only one full day (and two nights) between Jesus’ death and then the morning he supposedly rose. And according to Mark, it appears that way:
And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. (Mark 15:42-43)
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. (Mark 16:1)
So Jesus died on the evening of preparation for a sabbath. Even if the passion began on the previous feast day (Thursday) he is said to have died on an evening of preparation for another one, which had to be Friday. So he spent Friday night, Saturday and Saturday night dead. Not really three days and three nights however you slice it.
Of course this is all a bit like arguing about Star Wars canon. Discrepancies and mistakes are bound to happen in fiction as it grows
Wednesday was a preparation day for the annual Sabbath(Feast of Unleavened Bread)that was on Thursday when the Jews celebrated the Passover. Jesus died on Wednesday the preparation day of the Jews for that years annual feast. Jesus celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nisan as God had commanded but the Jews changed it to the 15th of Nisan. Just to make the point that Jesus math was correct as the scriptures were written. To believe or not to believe is the question but at least the facts of what the writers wrote should be accurately explored.
So if Jesus died on Wednesday, the preparation day for the first sabbath, you are basically guessing that he rose at some point on Saturday (otherwise he again cannot count and took 4 nights). The writers give no indication of this that I have found. It’s possibly the case (aside from him not having existed), but you cannot complain that I’m not accurately exploring what they said when I’m not agreeing with your guess. Considering there are so many contradictions and inaccuracies in the bible, I don’t think it is unrealistic to consider this story ended up with a simple math goof in it.
Also the ‘writers’ of each gospel were numerous and spread out over many years, so it’s not as if we can see them as having a unified intent or perspective. Errors are pretty likely to happen with that kind of collating of stories.
Jesus celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nisan as God had commanded but the Jews changed it to the 15th of Nisan.
@FYI
Passover always was and still is the 15th. The ceremonial feast (seder) is celebrated on the evening of the 14th, which according to the jewish tradition is actually the 15th since the date is changed at sunset.
The Bible is clear that the 14th of the month is God’s Passover and the 15th day begins a different time:
5 On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the LORD’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD (Leviticus 23:4-6).
There is only one “twilight” for the 14th and that is right after sunset that begins the day. Thus, the 14th is clearly the day of God’s Passover. Also see Exodus 12:3-11 it is the first place in the Bible that the calendar date of the Passover is specifically mentioned.
@FYI
If you actually read the verses you’re quoting it is very clear that the 15th is the actual holiday. the exodus quote talk about killing a lamb on the 14th to smear its blood on the door so when your loving god is going around murdering innocent children he know to skip the houses of the israelites (that’s where the name passover originate). At the time jesus allegedly lived people were slaughtering a lamb at the temple on the 14th to be used in the feast that was taking place on that evening (a tradition still practiced by the samaritans and some jewish communities) The modern seder is used to commemorate these ceremonial sacrifices that were used to be preformed in the temple.
Don’t give me wrong. I’m not basing this on scripture, but what I was taught in school (yeap, we still got religious education in Greece). As far as the Greek Orthodox is concerned, Jesus descended into Hades and taught the dead. If this is justified is another issue entirely.
The math doesn’t work for Jesus anyway. He was crucified on Friday, entombed Friday night and supposedly arose Sunday morning, that’s only two nights and one day under the earth. (as a former math teacher I expect everyone to check their math, especially before placing it in sacred and inerrant texts)
He was crucified and died late afternoon on Wednesday, Passover day. He rose on Saturday late afternoon, 72 hours later (3 days and 3 nights).
Oh, and you were there in Hades?…..Figures! Your argument is nothing but doctrinal garbage! My statement WAS accurate. Try again.
You have made no argument and what you say is not accurate but a lie. Based on no facts but just conjecture.
The bible is conjecture as well.
To some but to others it is not.
No, to everyone it is. Some just refuse to admit it, but they have no actual evidence to back it up as an authority on anything. There is a chance they could be right, but if they are it is a lucky guess. You cannot have an item that is conjecture to some and real to others. Reality doesn’t work that way – either something has evidence for it or it doesn’t.
When Paul refered to scripture, he was refering to the Old Testament, NOT the New! There isn’t a single source that establishes the New as the word of god. We have no choice but to NOT literally believe any of it. The originals in the hands of the Catholic Church, at the time of Constantine, may have been corrupted into what it is today. That is a strong possibility!
- Reality doesn’t work that way – either something has evidence for it or it doesn’t.
I would have to disagree with you on that. We do not live in a world where reality is black and white. A world were right is always right and wrong is always wrong. To what degree of evidence does it take for a item to be believed or rejected? Who among us are qualified to make such judgments for us all? Should we not make such judgments for ourselves concerning what we think and believe? The world of reality that we live in this day, thinks not.
@FYI “I would have to disagree with you on that. We do not live in a world where reality is black and white. A world were right is always right and wrong is always wrong. To what degree of evidence does it take for a item to be believed or rejected?”
Ah, I see your problem FYI, you confuse beliefs with facts. No evidence is required for belief. You can believe in your invisible sky daddy with no evidence whatsoever. But if you want to PROVE he exists, that requires evidence.
” Who among us are qualified to make such judgments for us all?”
Again, you are speaking of beliefs not facts. If facts are clear and if you do not cloud your mind with delusions and fairy tale myths you can see them clearly. Now sometimes evidence is not clear, is subject to more than a single interpretation or is completely nonexistent. In that case we cannot judge but must either fall back on belief or suspend judgement until further evidence is acquired. A great example of this was the question of whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth revolved around the sun. Without knowing that the earth is spinning on its own axis, it seems apparent that the sun revolves around the earth, but as Gallileo and then Newton began looking at the other objects in the skies, especially the planets, he was able to work out mathematically the truth with facts. Whether or not you believed either premise no longer mattered as we had the mathematical proofs that could be examined.
“Should we not make such judgments for ourselves concerning what we think and believe?”
You can choose what to believe you can even choose to ignore evidence and remain ignorant – notice how neatly ignore and ignorant fit together? When you choose belief over evidence you become willfully ignorant.
Firstly, reality and morality are two different things, and second you appear to be conflating evidence with proof. I’m not asking for proof the bible is the word of god and anyone should pay heed to it, I’m asking for evidence that this might possibly be the case. There is none. It is entirely conjecture.
And you do know how to lie…..it takes a liar to know one. Try again.
Stop crying, sticks and stones right back at ya.
How terribly christian of you! You did start it all. Name calling won’t get you to heaven.
Who said I was a christian and FYI, I am not trying to get into Heaven. Are you?
Heaven? What the hell is heaven?……no such place that I know of.
Yes, I will agree that it is obvious to us all that you know nothing.
How could you know that I know nothing, if you do not know me. Please watch what you say, illogical thoughts do not serve you well.
Saying you do not know what you are talking about is not a illogical thought. It is a stated fact. If you have any intelligent input to the subjects at hand, state them and stop with the semantics because they really make you look like a poser.
This does perhaps answer one of my questions though about the death and resurrection story. Most descriptions of crucifictions show death taking 3 to 7 days to kill, which would have left Jesus still on the cross when he supposedly arose. Also the piercing his side with a sword by a Roman soldier would have been defeating the man’s punishment, something that would call for the soldier to take his place. Romans either took your possessions if you were a citizen or sold you into slavery if you weren’t a citizen or killed you with the means of death reflecting the offense. Roman soldiers would not have interfered with what was apparently one of the most severe punishments. A lot of this is based on things from different sources so I’m not sure about the accuracy of it all, but it has always made me question not just the resurrection but the death story. Of course the fact that the gospels were written long after Jesus’ time, if he did exist, means that all of it is questionable rather than inerrant.
Yes, by nature crucifixions took longer to kill their victims. But you have to remember Jewish culture here. Jesus was but on the cross on a Friday, the day before the Sabbath. So while he hung most of the night the Jews were yelling at the Romans about killing their man on the Sabbath, which to them was an unholy thing to do.
They even discuss this in the Bible. The Romans obliged to the Jews and went off to kill the three crucified early. As you likely know, when on a cross on has the ability to push up on one’s feet in order to breath. Once you stop pushing up, you can no longer breath and you die. The Roman guards went around and broke the people hanging’s legs so that they would die faster. Jesus appeared dead. So instead of breaking his legs, they first pierced his side to see if he was actually dead or not. When blood and water came out, a sign of death, they merely pulled him from the cross and buried him.
As for the Gospel’s writing, the most liberal estimates place them as being written about 70-100 years after Jesus’s death. Historically, this is to be taken very accurately. Naturally, though, this doesn’t prove miracles, resurrection, etc. But in all the historical aspects, it is to be taken as true.
Also, that Jesus was crucified is documented in Roman history. They kept good records of those they killed LOL
They kept good records of those they killed LOL
Yes they did, and yet I’m unaware of any contemporary source mentioning jesus let alone him being crucified. Do you have a citation for the source where you found a roman record of jesus.
I know I”m going to sound like a cop-out but I don’t have the sources on hand. I recall reading several books on the matter. But this I know beyond a doubt:
Jesus was a real person and Jesus died.
There is not a person on the planet that has done the research and does not attest to this fact. There is more documentation that Jesus lived and died than any other person on the planet–non religious texts. I’m not understanding why you would think the person of Jesus was fiction. His actions can be debated, but that he existed? And that he was killed, in some way shape or form, for blasphemy? That’s irrefutable.
Again, I’m not arguing for or against Christianity. Just stating–Jesus was a real man.
That’s a lie. Only the ones with a religious agenda attest to this. Any real historian would tell you that you’re out of your mind, seeing as how there’s no 3rd party documentation of the existence of your “Jesus”. This alone makes anything else you’ve said completely unworthy of a response. Nice try, fundie.
There is not a person on the planet that has done the research and does not attest to this fact.
While I essentially agree with you, there is a school of thought that says that Jesus was a literary character. See Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, etc. These people are knowledgeable scholars, though I think they go too far in many of their interpretations.
There is more documentation that Jesus lived and died than any other person on the planet–non religious texts.
No. I’m sorry. Barring the religious texts – the Gospels, the Epistles, etc. – there are only a couple of mentions of Jesus within a century of his life. Those being Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus. All three have some problems.
We have far more, and more reliable, sources about many ancient politicians and other figures.
“Jesus was a real man”………Based on what? There is no justification for the belief that anything in the new testament actually happened.Your statement may be wrong. So many authors, writing of jesus, based their “books” on a person in a book that may or may not haved lived. What a waste of paper! Jesus and the gospel stories are symbolic and allegorical…..nothing more. I’m glad that the apostle Paul would have backed me up on that point…..if he had known about them, which he did not.
Really? You believe there is more factual evidence that Jesus lived and died than for any other person who ever lived? WOW! So 2000 years ago when writing was all by hand and paper expensive to make, more of it was used to document the life and death of Jesus than any person since? Now this has to be factual documentation, meaning stuff written during his life as official documents. I bet there is more of that for any single American living today than there was for Jesus, let alone someone famous whose life inspired people to write about them.
You might even find that there were a number of Nazarenes named Jesus who got killed by the Romans and probably many had Joseph as their father’s name. Both were common Jewish names in that time. That doesn’t prove, even if you find the right Jesus, that he rose from the dead. Anyone born in 33 bc would be long dead by now.
Roman source? Jesus’ name was actually Yeshua or as we call it today…Joshua. At the time of jesus, Joshua was one of the most popular names given to boys. Sort of like John. So the Romans recorded the death of A Joshua, might one assume that they simply called him John Doe for lack of a proper name. Well, that sort of clears that one up. Next?
They not only recorded the first names they recorded who they were. Joshua son of Joseph of Nazereth. That would have been the record. Plus, this was a fairly publicized death. And as it grew in religious popularity the Romans no doubt continually brought up that he was dead.
Looking back historically, you find that the followers of Christ very much agreed that he had died (that he was alive was something else, not discussing that yet lol), the Jews agreed that he was dead, and the Romans agreed he was dead.
Please don’t insult the Romans like that haha. There is more evidence on the face of the planet for Jesus of Nazereth’s death than any other historical event.
I’m not arguing for or against Christianity. But that Jesus died cannot be historically debated.
Um…. Sources, please! That Jesus existed can be historically debated!
Heh. I understand your claim about Jesus’ existence, but there’s no evidence to back it up. At best, we have a “Joshua, crucified in year xx” in one recordbook somewhere, and that’s it. That’s all we have, period.
If you include religious texts, we have copies from 80-100 years later of some of the epistles or letters, which were written 40-80 years after Christ’s death. Not really solid stuff, and we don’t have any of the original documents.
Contrast this to the evidence for the existence of Abraham Lincoln. Countless contemporary writers and historians wrote about him while he was still alive. We have paintings of him, documents in his handwriting, newspaper articles about him, pictures of him. You can visit his grave or talk to his descendants.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point. Saying “there is more documentation that Jesus lived and died than any other person on the planet” is absolutely absurd in every respect.
“He “died” for the Jews who followed the Law of Moses. The Law was never meant for Gentiles, therefore unless you are Jewish, the sacrifice was worthless. Jesus may have been a saviour for the Jews but NOT for those not of the Jewish faith. Your argument would not survive against what the apostle Paul wrote. He chastised Peter for forcing Jewish beliefs on the non-Jewish believers. I suggest you convert to Judaism and then Jesus can be your saviour. By the way, where in the New testament does Jesus actually say that he is THE saviour?
Please forgive me, but I hope somebody who thinks Jesus is a saviour, would satisfy my curiosity.”
Interesting Q for someone who appears to be reasonably versed in Biblical things….But I will respond :) Yes, Jesus himself claimed to be God and our Savior.
John 10:22-34
22Then came the Feast of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly.”
25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’[e]? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
He not only said he was equal with God, he said they are one. “I and the father are one.” Or, “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”
He did something that he agreed only God could do, forgive a man’s sins. But to show the Pharisees the hardness of their hearts he healed him as well.
Mark 2 55-12
5And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,
7″Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?
9″Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’?
10″But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–He said to the paralytic,
11″I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”
12And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, ” We have never seen anything like this.”
He says he is the judge of mankind.
15″Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16″You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17″So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18″A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19″Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20″So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21″ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22″ Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23″And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
He claims to exist before all and at the same time calls himself God. I AM is a name of God in the Bible we gain from Exodus 3:13,14 as well as other places. And by saying that he claimed directly to be God. This was no verbal slipup, all jews would know this. By saying he was around before Abraham he again asserts his Godhead.
52The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’
53″Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?”
54Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’;
55and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word.
56″ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
He says he is the giver of eternal life:
John 10:28
“ 28and I give (AM)eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.”
@Si: You say you don’t think all things in the generally accepted Bible are true? The Bible would seem to say otherwise…..
1st Tim 3:16“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
EVEN if you erroneously apply this just to Old Testament, the messiah is talked about there hundreds of times in prophecy. They all came true. Check it out
Now, I realize that as a fundamental Christian I am sticking out like a sore thumb on this thread, but I thought it wouldn’t be bad to get a true view point that a fundamental Christian believes. Or at least a general idea If you want to learn about Christianity, ask a fundamental Christian, not somebody that tosses out the foundations of the faith like the inerrancy of scripture.
@Michael, you are close, but a bit off the mark. I am not sure though this post is the proper place for discussing the difference between Sheol, and Hell but we shall see. Read my above post
My apologies if the posting breaks up my post :P
A bible believing cherry picker! Don’t pull verses out of context in order to show us how stupid you are! I am completely accurate in my above statements. How is it that the two greatest commandments that jesus indicated are ignored while all the clap-trap sh*t about everything else that is worthless IS acknowedged? “Love God and love one another”….who needs a saviour, who needs redemption from sin, why condemn your enemies, why talk of sin and hell??!! What is it, is it just too hard to follow these two simple commandments? No love……no heaven, and wouldn’t that be a shame?! Take these commandments to heart, close the damn bible and live them!……or is it too much fun to beat up others who don’t agree with you?
Side note, this was not an evangelical post simply a post to clear the waters from my viewpoint :)
As a curiosity, do you all, mainly atheists, consider yourselves evangelizing when you try to attack faiths? Attack not meaning malicious, simply critically questioning and examining. It seems that in sort of a backwards way it is evangelizing..meaning that most comments should be illegal on this post ;)
James,
Nice try, but no. Athiests do not evangelize when “trying” to attack faiths. On this forum, a good majority of the posters are former xtians so we know the bible, we understand the foundations of your beliefs.
Generally the posters do not attack faiths, we just point out the absudities of any faith whether it is xtian, islam et al.
We also do not have “the great commission” to go out and spread the word. That would be evangelizing. Athiests for the most part do not go around spreading our beliefs. A lot of that has to do with the negative response we would receive from friends, family and/or the community who cannot fathom that we do not believe in their particular sky-daddy.
Keep in mind this is a blog run by an individual who has set basic ground rules for posting. Unreasonable Faith did not seek you out James. You knowingly chose to come and comment on a blog who’s stated purpose is to discuss “reasonable thoughts on religion, science and skepticism”.
It’s not evangelizing to examine what has seeped into our culture or virtually drowns it in every crevice and say that it is silly. CNN, ostensibly a news network, has seen fit to include something called a “Belief Blog” on its site. I mean, they’re allowed, but what is this crap? Is it news? I guess it is news if someone has written an academic paper to research an ancient text, which happens to be the basis of supernatural belief of most people in the United States. But is the bible true, is god real? Is this news, really?
Atheists would have nothing to say if this magical fantasy wasn’t taken seriously by so many people that, for example, CNN sets aside a place for people to talk about it. I don’t think it’s evangelizing at all to try to put things back in their place, to say, reality is reality, and woo is woo, why do people keep mixing up the two? Why do adults retain the mentality of a child about this particular thing, and get defensive if someone, gasp!!, finds out that Jesus might not been literally hung on a cross but some other method of torture involving suspension? Why is something so imaginary so important to them and yet so fragile that to say anything is wrong with it is an attack, or evangelizing, or a religion unto itself? We’re just pointing out the cognitive dissonance in the claim to be intelligent and yet believe in fairy god and his illogical book, which if there were none, we’d close up shop and have nothing left to say about it.
@Objectifier”This does perhaps answer one of my questions though about the death and resurrection story. Most descriptions of crucifictions show death taking 3 to 7 days to kill, which would have left Jesus still on the cross when he supposedly arose. Also the piercing his side with a sword by a Roman soldier would have been defeating the man’s punishment, something that would call for the soldier to take his place. Romans either took your possessions if you were a citizen or sold you into slavery if you weren’t a citizen or killed you with the means of death reflecting the offense. Roman soldiers would not have interfered with what was apparently one of the most severe punishments. A lot of this is based on things from different sources so I’m not sure about the accuracy of it all, but it has always made me question not just the resurrection but the death story. Of course the fact that the gospels were written long after Jesus’ time, if he did exist, means that all of it is questionable rather than inerrant.”
Actually, if you know Jewish history you would know they wanted them dead before the sabbath and it was common practice to kill them if they weren’t going to die in time. Normally they would break their legs to kill them, but in the fulfillment of prophecy unknowingly they pierced his side fulfilling the prophet Isaiah talking about the lamb dying without breaking a bone.
“Actually, if you know Jewish history you would know they wanted them dead before the sabbath and it was common practice to kill them if they weren’t going to die in time.”
As far as I know, breaking the legs was done to increase the pain of an already nasty form of execution; without legs, it is harder to keep up the posture needed to continue breathing (crucifixion killed taxing the body to the point where it is too exhausted to maintain the mechanical part of respiration). This would cause a quicker death, but that was not the motivation for the Romans’ to do so.
It makes no sense that the Romans would want to quicken the execution part way through as they would be accustomed for these to take days. Also, it makes little sense for the Romans to care about the sabbath since it is Jewish (non-Roman) custom.
“It makes no sense that the Romans would want to quicken the execution part way through as they would be accustomed for these to take days. Also, it makes little sense for the Romans to care about the sabbath since it is Jewish (non-Roman) custom.”
That is my thought as well. There is little sign outside of the bible that Romans bent their punishments to accommodate what they would see as “pagan” faiths. It seems more to me that writers working much later who did not understand the use of crucifixion got it wrong in an effort to make the story fit into the holidays of Rome when xtianity was being converted into the new Roman state faith. Despite claims that Constantine converted to xtianity it is much more apparent that he usurped xtianity and remolded it to fit the Roman ideals of religion.
But Jesus was killed for a Jewish law. The Jews wanted him Crucified and so to the Romans, it was more their execution than their own. They could care less if he died, actually…you see Pilate actually NOT wanting him dead.
So because the Jews instigated his killing, the Romans allowed them to kill ‘em early.
“Though I admit, part of me is morbidly curious as to what would have happened to early Christianity if Jesus had been impaled through the anus, as was sometimes done”
Jesus’ lollipops?
To fist(anally) is divine! Would only a single finger up the bum be considered sacriledge? No way I’d kiss a priest’s bum! Kiss my holy ass!
@Paul, they do not carry the jewish traditions, but even being the ruling nation it is foolish to completely discard the underling nation’s rituals. For another example of what i am saying, the jews could sentence you to be flogged, but only a certain amount, so they sent Jesus to pilot/herod trying to get a death penalty as they didn’t have that much power.
@Kodie: It’s not? Well actually I disagree, but before I have to leave for work lemme respond to your statements about the cross.
“Why do adults retain the mentality of a child about this particular thing, and get defensive if someone, gasp!!, finds out that Jesus might not been literally hung on a cross but some other method of torture involving suspension? Why is something so imaginary so important to them and yet so fragile that to say anything is wrong with it is an attack, or evangelizing, or a religion unto itself? We’re just pointing out the cognitive dissonance in the claim to be intelligent and yet believe in fairy god and his illogical book, which if there were none, we’d close up shop and have nothing left to say about it.”
The easy answer is because it’s not a fairy tale neither is it illogical :) If it was over the 1800 years or so the Bible has been around it would NOT be around. It would be stamped out and debunked, but as it is neither of the things ye mentioned it lives on as the inspired word of God.
Luke 23:26
” 26As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him.”
I don’t have time to go into roman law on making a jew help them but if you think it odd that a jew had to carry it then look it up.
Luke 29:39
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
If he was hung, OR impaled why would they look at his hands and feet? That is nonsense. Hands and feet is a directly correlating statement with death a on a cross.
Sincerely,
James
A really old cult fantasizing about a sky daddy and the book he wrote really poorly doesn’t make it true, no matter how old it is or how many people think it’s true. It just makes its followers gullible and unable to face facts for one reason or another, usually boiling down to wishful thinking. Nice try, no cigar.
Enough with verses from that book of fairy tales! You may think it’s the word of god, but honestly there is no way on earth to establish that fact. You could gleam more from a copy of “Hustler” than you can from that book.
“If he was hung, OR impaled why would they look at his hands and feet?”
His hands and feet may have been bound before the hanging, which could leave marks to be seen. Or Jesus could have just been saying “here, I have all my parts, I’m not a zombie or a ghost”.
Or it was added later on after the crucifixion tradition was already established. The buybull quoting jesus is as much a reliable source for what jesus said as JK rawling quoting voldemort is for the existence of hogwarts.
Then, according to your line of thinking, the Vedas of the Hindus must be even more trustworthy than the Bible as they’re much older than 1800 years. If the Vedas weren’t true they wouldn’t still be around, with a following of close to a billion Hindus.
Now we have left the realm of talk and ye all are simply stating you disagree without looking carefully at my argument :( This will be my last post here.
“Enough with verses from that book of fairy tales! You may think it’s the word of god, but honestly there is no way on earth to establish that fact. You could gleam more from a copy of “Hustler” than you can from that book.”
In a way you are right, that is why Christianity has to do with “faith”, but not a blind faith. If you all really want to try to tear a book up, checkout “A case for Christ”. It is written by a professional journalist :)
@John:”His hands and feet may have been bound before the hanging, which could leave marks to be seen. Or Jesus could have just been saying “here, I have all my parts, I’m not a zombie or a ghost””
This doesn’t even make sense <_< If so they it should have read, "Look at my NECK" not hands and feet. You are really looking for a reason to not agree with me, and so ye found one. And will prolly keep finding one ;) But some things are just not debatable, what the verse is saying being one of them. There are even separate versus that say he ate to dispel them thinking he was a ghost. Also, the Bible says there are no such things as ghost. "For it is appointed unto men one time to die then judgment." So Jesus eating was purely to show added proof he was not a spirit as they would think as he bore the scars and was the same man.
Interestingly enough Yoav, if somebody is the world's finest expert on something like…Jewelry, and he said something once, then quotes himself later on, would you consider that ridiculous? lol NO! Because he is the *expert*. Now, as I believe Jesus to be God, why can't I quote what he says about himself?
Anyway, I hope I have not offended, but instead showed what I believe to be true logically and dispelled some otherwise poisonous confusion about what the Bible says.
Also, to the moderator of this comment section: Thank you for allowing me some reign in what I said, I deeply appreciate that and commend you.
Thank you all,
Sincerely
James
I suggest taking a look at “The Pagan Christ” by Tom Harpur.
Martyr grandstanding != winning an argument.
You can’t prove a single supernatural claim. You lose.
Don’t you mean stuperstitional claim instead of stupernatural claim?
It’s hard to find a non-religious discussion of crucifixion, but it appears that it was extremely common in the ancient world. Sure, there were variations- sometimes no crosspiece, just nailed to a pole. I imagine the availability and price of wood and nails, wooden spikes, or rope determined the details – maybe some day we’ll find the SOP for the Judaean garrison. From a psyops perspective, the important thing is for the populace to see the rebel suffer.
Leave it to the guys who play Roman army to treat the topic in a more level-headed way:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29494
A previous comment also noted it: To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, the christians would be wearing nooses or spears or nails (instead of tiny electric chairs) around their necks.
personally i would think that jesus was crucified, didnt the crowd cry out for him to be crucified? Didnt they challenge him to come down from the CROSS? not the impaling spear. He lived for 6 hours, he couldnt have been hanged. Also, the prophecy said that his hands and feet would be pierced.