The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[crucifiction] was widespread across the Roman Empire which included Europe, North Africa and Western Asia. It originated several centuries before the Common Era and continued into the fourth century AD when the practice was discontinued by Constantine, the emperor of Rome. While its origins are obscured in antiquity, it is clear that this form of capital punishment lasted for around 800 years and tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals were subject to this cruel and humiliating death.
- Joe Zias, Crucifiction In Antiquity
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;
Christus, from whom the [religions] name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus
- Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals
I actually wonder if Jesus existed at all. And if so there are so many contridictions in the bible..... It all seems like some type of dream. Some type of truths mixed with falsehood.
I am sure he walked this Earth but doubt he was the son of a GodHead
I could believe it. The church I grew up in believed that it wasn't a cross, it was a single upright pole, and his hands were nailed above his head. That way the pressure on his torso forced his lungs to fill up with fluid, suffocating him.
jehovah's witness?
It wouldn't really surprise me, but frankly, what's the real difference (besides techniques) between being "suspended" and being nailed up. The end result is the same. Either way sounds pretty gruesome to me.
A LOT of people would need to buy new necklaces...
" That they(i.e the Jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." (Qur'an).
in the original Greek, the ancient texts reveal only that Jesus carried "some kind of torture or execution device" to a hill where "he was suspended" and died,
i would suggest that no very reputable historian "doubts" it - there is simply no reason to do so and there is good reason to accept the Gospels recitation. Although there are no extra-biblical reports by persons involved, there are reliable reports by those with no reason to propagandize and good reason NOT to, including the Roman Jew Josephus:
Obviously, Josephus' sources were either jesus cult followers or those very familiar with the new religion. Perhaps a more reliable writer would be the roman historian, Tacitus;
Tacitus mentions 'Christus' as the origins of the then proliferating church which Rome was working quite hard to stamp out. Notably, the Annals was written in the First Century, within a few years of the original writing of the Bible - almost certainly they were NOT his source.
geo.
In fact, NONE of the new testament books were written by firsthand associates of Jesus the Christ
The Josephus account was almost certainly altered to bring it into conformity with the early Catholic church. Josephus was an orthodox Jew, he would hardly refer to a teacher of heresy as "wonderful."
not necessarily correct. Mark was the recorded teachings of Peter, John appears to have been dictated by the apostle to his disciples, and Matthew appears to have been written by the apostle himself. Luke admits firshand that he is not an eyewitness, but records the multiple eyewitness and written accounts that he used as source material.
not necessarily correct. Mark was the recorded teachings of Peter, John appears to have been dictated by the apostle to his disciples, and Matthew appears to have been written by the apostle himself. Luke admits firshand that he is not an eyewitness, but records the multiple eyewitness and written accounts that he used as source material.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?