The Image of the Cross is wrong, it was X shaped and just above the height of a man.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Last night's programme on Secrets in the Museums covered the Israeli Museum (in Jerusalem I think), where the expert showed us a buriel box with the bones in it of a man who had been crucified around the same time as Christ.

What was fascinating is that the image of the cross world-wide is wrong he said. Simply because the nails go through each ankle bone. He informed us that there are/were no big trees in the land and that people were cruficied on stakes simply shaped into an 'X'. They were spread eagled, stark naked with their arms and ankles nailed to each end of the X.

They were not raised up or in a T shape. What also appears to come into question is the image of the spear being stretched up to pierce Christ's side.

The Jews owe nothing to christianity so have no reason to put simple information out etc but its a huge thing to actually have to change the image millions have of the holy crucifixation.

I know people love to keep their trusted ideas and they take comfort from them, but shouldn't reality enter into the picture somewhere. I doubt this was not know by the top brass in the diffferent branches of Christianity.




posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The vertical nature of the crucifixion was puzzling too. I would think it too top heavy, the upright either falling, or breaking. While breaking in just the right spot, would get the job done. I believe the point of this form of execution was exposure.

Nailing and laying the frame flat would be just as effective, without all those engineering measurements. Once deceased (and several pounds lighter from desiccation), a public display of a vertically placed cross wouldn't be as difficult. Similar to placing a head on a spike. Makes a point, easy to do.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I dont know what the facination is with the shape of the cross is.

Does it matter if it was a cross, X, VT, or a plane vertical stake? The important thing is WHY he died.

And the the fact that the big christian denominations use the cross as a symobol makes me sick as it clearly states in the bible idolatry is bad.
edit on 10-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
People 2,000 years ago were quite short, so whenever I hear tales about the crucifixion I do think of a tiny cross, kids (of today) size.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
I dont know what the facination is with the shape of the cross is.

Does it matter if it was a cross, X, VT, or a plane vertical stake? The important thing is WHY he died.

And the the fact that the big christian denominations use the cross as a symobol makes me sick as it clearly states in the bible idolatry is bad.
edit on 10-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


Guess that would depend if the person or religion was worshiping the cross. I see it as a sign of rememberance.

Just as some christians say, "a crusafix is bad because Jesus is no longer on the cross and that Cathoics crucify him every day in that manner". I still say false.. it's nothing more than something to remember... To remember what happened and why... To give one an idea, however small it may be, just how horrible the act was that took place. Just as art might show the passion behind the image, so to is the passion represented, as well as the pain and torture, as displayed by the crusafix.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


There were actually many variants of the crosses used in Roman crucifiction:


The crux simplex (I). An upright pole (called the crux simplex) was used for the purpose of crucifixion. A combination of the upright pole and a crossbeam formed another simple type of cross. The person to be crucified would carry the crossbeam to the place of execution. The crossbeam would then be attached to the post.

The crux decussata (X), also called the crux Andreana, because according to tradition St. Andrew was said to have suffered upon it.

The crux commissa (T), or St. Anthony's cross. This type of cross was formed like a T.

The crux immissa (t), or Latin cross, which was the kind of cross on which Jesus Christ died. The Latin cross had a longer descending arm associated with the cross of Jesus crucifixion.


Source
Verification


The New Testament writings about the crucifixion of Jesus do not speak specifically about the shape of that cross, but the early writings that do speak of its shape, from about the year 100 AD on, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau)[27] or as composed of an upright and a transverse beam, sometimes with a small ledge in the upright.


Regardless of the type of cross used, crucifixion was obviously a terrible way to die.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


But how he died is not really what Jesus wanted to be rembered is it why he died.

Rather than remembering his execution we should be remembering his life and what it stood for.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by theRhenn
 


But how he died is not really what Jesus wanted to be rembered is it why he died.

Rather than remembering his execution we should be remembering his life and what it stood for.


ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

It was a TREE. The Greek word used for cross, is the CROSSBEAM. You would be nailed to the beam, hung on a tree and die. The tree remains for the next lucky guy



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


sounds more like Christian bashing to me.

fact is the romans used many different forms of a cross. and the bit about not havering trees, what do you think olives grow on. here is a picture first.
where did the crowd find Juses, in the olive grove. so there was at least one type of tree there.


here is but one example.



Cross shape
The gibbet on which crucifixion was carried out could be of many shapes. Josephus describes multiple tortures and positions of crucifixion during the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus crucified the rebels;[24] and Seneca the Younger recounts: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet


above from this wiki
Crucifixion

and the next.


"Stauros" interpreted as ambivalent in meaning
The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott reports that the meaning of the word "σταυρός" in the early Homeric form of Greek, possibly of the eighth to sixth century BC, and also in the writings of the fifth-century BC writers Herodotus and Thucydides and the early-4th century BC Xenophon, is "an upright pale or stake" used to build a palisade[16] or "a pile driven in to serve as a foundation"[17] It reports that in the writings of the first-century BC Diodorus Siculus, first-century AD Plutarch and early second-century Lucian—as well as in Matthew 27:40, Luke 9:23, 14:27—the word "σταυρός" is used to refer to a cross, either as the instrument of crucifixion or metaphorically of voluntary suffering; "its form was indicated by the Greek letter T". It also reports that Plutarch used the word with regard to a pale for impaling a corpse.[18] Of the writers whom Liddell and Scott gives as using "σταυρός" to mean a cross, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology holds that in Diodorus Siculus the word probably means a stake for hanging.[19] Plutarch (in An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat) distinguishes crucifixion on a stauros from impalement on a skolops.[20]


Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion

truth is no one knows, that is alive now. but most shows on tv are not exactly the most truthful.





edit on 10-8-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralMishka


ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part


Its the reasons WHY he died that important. Not wether he was hung on a cross or whatever other shape.
edit on 10-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by GeneralMishka


ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part


Its the reasons WHY he died that important. Not wether he was hung on a cross or whatever other shape.
edit on 10-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


well i think it is important to a point. he had to fulfill all that prophetized about him.
i'll have to go and find them. i think one was in Psalms



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


If you believe he fulfilled the Law,
yes, it does matter


Deuteronomy 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

Deuteronomy 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God
that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
the cross would have to be in the form of a t...
(of course without the curve at the bottom)....

how else would the Romans have placed the INRI sign above his head as stated in scriptures..?



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 



Yes its important it that regard. But its still irrelveant to the shape of what he was hung on as long as it was a stake of some sort and it doesnt justify makeing the cross (if it was a cross) a image to be worshiped and prayed to in contradiction to the whole idolatry is bad theme.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   


ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 


This is quite a common misconception. The crucifixion of Jesus did nothing. No ritualistic killing could magically force a god into doing something that he didn't want to do. If the biblical god wanted to forgive sins, he would simply have done it. If anything, the death of Jesus was nothing but a symbolic gesture, though what that gesture meant is flawed. The murder of someone does not suggest the forgiving of sins. It does not prove a god's love for us, especially since the proof of god's love would have been for Jesus to live on earth forever as a guide and inspiration to us all.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Even though Hezekiah destryed the brasen serpent because of idolatry

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

We are called on to remember the WORD
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:


-------------------

The OP is falling on some Charlton Heston Planet of the Apes idolatry with the x crux's



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj



ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 


This is quite a common misconception. The crucifixion of Jesus did nothing. No ritualistic killing could magically force a god into doing something that he didn't want to do. If the biblical god wanted to forgive sins, he would simply have done it. If anything, the death of Jesus was nothing but a symbolic gesture, though what that gesture meant is flawed. The murder of someone does not suggest the forgiving of sins. It does not prove a god's love for us, especially since the proof of god's love would have been for Jesus to live on earth forever as a guide and inspiration to us all.



Only a perfect sacrifice could reconcile us back to God

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 





Only a perfect sacrifice could reconcile us back to God


Think about what you're suggesting. A perfect, bloody torture of a man who is then spiked to a couple logs is the only way to force a god into welcoming you into his heart. Not only is this flawed thinking, it's quite insane.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj



ahem, His death as reconcilation for the sins of His people is th emost important part
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 


This is quite a common misconception. The crucifixion of Jesus did nothing. No ritualistic killing could magically force a god into doing something that he didn't want to do. If the biblical god wanted to forgive sins, he would simply have done it. If anything, the death of Jesus was nothing but a symbolic gesture, though what that gesture meant is flawed. The murder of someone does not suggest the forgiving of sins. It does not prove a god's love for us, especially since the proof of god's love would have been for Jesus to live on earth forever as a guide and inspiration to us all.


gonna put it real simple,

Jesus was crucified to fulfill the law, for the blood sacrifice . he was the sin offering. never again would a offering have to be sacrificed for sin. and the fact that he gave his one and only son for that offering proves his love for us.
by giving of his life as a man, by laying down his life for others, gives some more inspiration, than say some one who would let others die in his place.

tell me would you be inspired by some one who saw others dieing and could have stopped it by giving his own life, and didn't. or some one who stepped into their place.

i would consider the first selfish, the second selfless.
edit on 10-8-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


A mere no, but one that is fully God Yes

From the Heidleberg Catechism (Q17 with proofs)

Question 14. Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a mere creature, able to satisfy for us?

Answer: None; for, first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man has committed; (a) and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God's eternal wrath against sin, so as to deliver others from it. (b)

Question 15. What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?

Answer: For one who is very man, and perfectly (a) righteous; (b) and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God. (c)


Question 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer: That he might, by the power of his Godhead (a) sustain in his human nature, (b) the burden of God's wrath; (c) and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life. (d)

(a) Isa.9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa.63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. (b) Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (c) Deut.4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Nah.1:6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. Ps.130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? (d) Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join