The God of John's gospel, the God of the Old Testament

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

It's reading exactly why numbers 2 states. Each camp could not extend north south east or west of the other camps around the tabernacle. Following those guidelines, the camp toward the east would be the longest, the camp to the west the shortest, the camps to the north and south were almost identical in size, yet shorter than the eastern camp but longer than the western camp.

A cross shape if you approached camp from the east.

Only IF one believes they lined up as the Christian pictures of it show... In reality they wouldn't have lined up tribe beside tribe making a cross... they would have wanted to be close to the tabernacle

it probably didn't look like a cross at all...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

And the accounts differ in that situation as well...

One says someone helped him, another says he did it all on his own...

and in any case, no mention of a cross bar at all... its only assumed

Of course it's assumed, that was a standard way to crucify for one thing, and secondly Jesus carried His cross a portion of the way to Golgatha. That was th capital punishment site outside the Praetorium. Why would the Roman soldiers exert energy to cut down and hewn a new cross or stake with every crucified person? Why not reuse the same stake? Sometimes several dozen people a day were executed, the Romans didn't play games. And Christ couldn't have carried the vertical stake, that was several hundred pounds in weight.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

It's reading exactly why numbers 2 states. Each camp could not extend north south east or west of the other camps around the tabernacle. Following those guidelines, the camp toward the east would be the longest, the camp to the west the shortest, the camps to the north and south were almost identical in size, yet shorter than the eastern camp but longer than the western camp.

A cross shape if you approached camp from the east.

Only IF one believes they lined up as the Christian pictures of it show... In reality they wouldn't have lined up tribe beside tribe making a cross... they would have wanted to be close to the tabernacle

it probably didn't look like a cross at all...

They couldn't line up however they wanted to, they had to line up exactly as God told them to. Read Numbers 2, draw it out for yourself based on the text.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It would look just like the picture i posted...

there would be no reason to line up side by side making a cross...

They would line up with the front of each tribe beside the tabernacle... not farther and farther away which would look as if some tribes were more important then others

a reply to: Akragon

I don't think you get it, the tabernacle wasn't large. Do you know the dimensions of the tabernacle? Not everyone could camp their tents close to it, the largest group had 180,000 men in it alone. That's just men. The camps had to extend outward toward the 4 compass positions. Perhaps the most senior leaders or elders in the tribes got the closest camp locations, that would be reasonable.

And it couldn't look exactly like the picture you posted, I already made mention that whomever designed the graphic had each camp the same size, yet they didn't have the same population of people. The eastern camp was the largest by 30,000 men alone.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

no i understand it completely... again there would be no reason for the formation to be anything resembling a cross...

They wouldn't line up as you suggest... mainly because with such vast populations in each tribe, two or three in a line would have people no where near the tabernacle of their god

Logically they would have been side by side, not stretched out in a line

Again my friend, you're reaching for something that simply isn't there... Theres no reason what so ever for them to be in a cross formation... OF course you are welcome to believe whatever you like, but theres no cross in that religion

looking down from the top of a mountian it would have looked like a huge group of people, not a cross like you want to believe

a reply to: Akragon

Okay, if you understand completely and there wouldn't need to be the formation of a cross, then let's just start with the largest group, the one to the East of the tabernacle. He eastern side of the tabernacle was 75 feet wide. Please share how 180,000 men plus their families and dwelling tents could huddle there in a 75 foot strip. Remember, they couldn't go north or south of the tabernacle. Since you said they would stay close to the tabernacle and wouldn't extend eastward away from the tabernacle then explain it.. Maybe they extended below ground? Build high rise dwelling towers?

a reply to: Akragon

They cannot be side by side, read the text of Numbers 2. Use the eastern example, the largest group. The cannot be north or south of the tabernacle. The eastern side was 75 feet. They could only extend eastward and only be 75 feet wide. Same for all others.

It as a cross. The eastern encampment the largest, the western encampment the shortest.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

pretty simple really...

the heads of each tribe would probably be at the front near the tabernacle...and the rest of each tribe would follow behind their standard... just as the picture shows

a reply to: windword

Perhaps it's because the Jewish people have always held in their hearts and embedded in their scripture, that we all are resurrected after 3 days, lest the soul be forced to remain with the body and experience the degradation of physical rot.

I didn't realize what a big subject that is until I considered quick answers. The quick answer is that around 100 BC the Pharisees were teaching the life of the World to come in connection with resurrection, similar to what is written in Daniel 12.

1“Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3“Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Martha, in the Gospel story says, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." So it would be fair to conclude that Martha was instructed in the teaching.

Before about 100 BC, I can only surmise that the concept of "being gathered to his people" which is used several times in Genesis was the view reaching back to Mesopotamian views of "the Great city" or "the land from which there is no return", which the Hebrews referred to as Sheol.

Before the Babylonian Captivity c597-537, BC, Hebrew society was divided between central temple worship and rural traditional worship. I imagine that the central worship people relied on having their names in a book in the temple as giving themselves a good position in the after life. Whereas the rural people kept the tradition of families continuing to provide after death care of ancestors, sometimes with clay representations of the dead, in order for their dead to have a favorable status in the underworld, without which, one could end up being a restless angry ghost.

see Ancient Mesopotamian Beliefs in the Afterlife

Humans were considered alive (Akk. awilu) as long as they had blood in their veins and breath in their nostrils. At the moment when humans were emptied of blood or exhaled their last breath, their bodies were considered empty cadavers (Akk. pagaru. The condition of this empty corpse is compared to deep sleep and, upon burial in the ground, the body fashioned from clay “returned to clay” (Bottéro, “Religion” 107). The biblical euphemism for death as sleep (New Revised Standard Version, 1 Kgs. 2:10; 2 Kgs. 10:35; 15:38; 24:6; 2 Chron. 9:31) and the statement, “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19; cf. Ecc. 3:20), point to the common cultural milieu underlying ancient Mesopotamian and Israelite paradigms.

Post exile, under Persian Zoroastrian influence, concepts of regular people (not just gods, goddesses, or heroes) could in some future event be resurrected to new life. That's where the Daniel 12 reference fits.

Imagine now, the time when the Jesus story is playing out. The Romans conscripted Judeans into their regiments and marched them off to far away lands to die violently in combat. No proper burial, no family around to ensure a remembrance and offer the food or anointing oils to establish a desirable position in sheol. The concept of Bosom of Abraham became important (think Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31) A far off conscript and a family-less poor person can have a better position than a rich man, plus an ethical, moral element is present also. The qualification is being a "child of Abraham".

Then in the story, Jesus is compared to Abraham, John 8:48-. and in the raising of Lazarus story, it's all as if he renders death itself into an illusion.

Well, that's the short version.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

looking back a few posts... what is this about?

Obviously they couldn't carry the crossbeam and the vetical pole, that would be several hundred pounds.

He carried his "Stake"....

Just as you've stated, they would have wanted to make things as easy as possible to execute criminals due to the shear amount of them... the easiest thing to make is a square stake... which would not be "several hundred pounds"

in fact it would be a waste of time for a cross beam to even exist... but we know he carried his "stake" as it states throughout the gospels

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

pretty simple really...

the heads of each tribe would probably be at the front near the tabernacle...and the rest of each tribe would follow behind their standard... just as the picture shows

Yes, it is simple, but the pic isn't to scale and the boxes for the tribes are the same size. The tabernacle was 150 feet long and 75 feet wide. The only place each group could extend as per the instructions from God would be outward to the 4 compass directions, nowhere else.

I mean the east tribe could only extend east, they couldn't camp east and North or south of the tabernacle.

a reply to: Akragon

So what do we do with the tremendous amount of Roman historical writings of the time about crucifixion? Just conclude they were lying and we know better than them?

The stake part of the cross was a TREE TRUNK with a flat part on it. Are you suggesting the condemned carried tree trunks the 500 or so meters to Golgotha? Was it balsa wood, I can't fathom how a hewn tree trunk would be not several hundred pounds in weight.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

of course its not to scale...

Your design has tribes far off of hearing anything that may be happening around the center...

its obvious that every tribe must have been close to the tabernacle

population doesn't even matter at these sizes.... tents and families

to say the whole situation happened to be in the shape of a cross is nothing but dogma...

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

So what do we do with the tremendous amount of Roman historical writings of the time about crucifixion? Just conclude they were lying and we know better than them?

The stake part of the cross was a TREE TRUNK with a flat part on it. Are you suggesting the condemned carried tree trunks the 500 or so meters to Golgotha? Was it balsa wood, I can't fathom how a hewn tree trunk would be not several hundred pounds in weight.

what we know is that they nailed people to stuff... and it wasn't necessarily a cross...

and no im suggesting that out of one tree they could make several "stakes" by cutting the grain of the wood... splinters and all... perfect "torture" device... and takes little time to make... why have a cross beam when you can nail him to a post in no time at all

a reply to: Akragon

You're correct, many were nailed upright because of the sheer numbers sometimes. In 71 BC 6,000 slaves were crucified on a roadway. Josephus recalls 500 being crucified on a single day in Jerusalem. But that wasn't the normal process, that was when there wasn't enough patibulums to accompany all the condemned. Arms outstretched is much more tortuous than arms above the head because when the arms are raised its easier to catch a full lung of air. With arms outstretched the condemned had to push themselves up off the foot nail, which was excruciatingly painful.

Go look on Google images, hundreds of concrete stake bases have been found by archaeologists in the old Roman Empire, the vertical pole part of the cross stayed there at the site, sometimes people were marched to the site, if they carried their patibulums they carried it to the site of the pole/stake.

In Jerusalem it was roughly 500 meters to the place outside the gates of the city where Golgotha was.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

of course its not to scale...

Your design has tribes far off of hearing anything that may be happening around the center...

its obvious that every tribe must have been close to the tabernacle

population doesn't even matter at these sizes.... tents and families

to say the whole situation happened to be in the shape of a cross is nothing but dogma...

So you're saying the people violated the command from God? Where he told Issachar, Zebulon, and Judah they could only be east of the tabernacle they decided to be east and north and south? You're saying they just said we aren't doing that and Moses was like, okay that's cool?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

no...

im saying that this god didn't command the formation of a cross

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

no...

im saying that this god didn't command the formation of a cross

Well, that's wrong. That's the shape created if you follow the directions in numbers 2. The reason it's a cross and not a + symbol is because of the population size of the 4 groups, the eastern group having 30,000 more men than the northern and southern groups.

Let be very conservative and say the men only had 1 wife and 1 child, that alone would be half a million people in just the group to the east of the tabernacle. Half a million people in a strip 75 feet wide and extending for probably a mile to the east.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

its nothing like a cross...

regardless of personage that pic represents area not people...

it is directional towards the center of worship

not based on a symbol way in the future...