Jesus nailed to a cross? Evidence does not support it

[credoconsolans]

https://news.yahoo.com/was-jesus-re...r-argues-151839318.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

Very much enjoy how the pic of a jasper gemstone with a carving of Jesus crucified that was originally in the Yahoo article has been removed and now can only be seen in the link to the original story -

https://theconversation.com/was-jesus-really-nailed-to-the-cross-56321

because it shows Jesus with his legs spread and a pole up his ass.

The scholar indicates all the words in the biblical texts used to describe how Jesus was crucified refer to a stick or stake. And it is speculated that the humiliating ass pole torturing stake was replaced by Jesus' followers to a cross bar cross which can be seen as a symbol of triumph since it was used by standard bearers of the Roman army.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it puts priests raping choirboys more in context. They were just teaching the kids about the sacrifice Jesus made for them.

 

[Lion IRC]

Very much enjoy...Jesus with his legs spread and a pole up his ass.

I bet you do!

How much do you enjoy sadism?

There's nothing in that article which supports your anal torture flight of fantasy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How much do you enjoy sadism?

No more than the average fundamentalist, I'd expect.

Those guys that get the glazed eyes when they describe how much they're looking forward to being in Heaven, looking down on me experiencing the torture of Hell for all eternity.
I don't think I could even enjoy watching people have sex for eternity, but these guys... God has promised that I'll suffer for doubting them, for questioning their faith, their authority, their math, and promised them that they'll be there to enjoy every fingernail yanked out, every car battery attached, every hot poker poked...
They tell me this and don't even apologize for the spittle I have to wipe off my glasses.

They probably took that 'pithed frog' looking gemstone out of the article because too many readers were getting hot and bothered by the image.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, I hate to rain on anyone's impalement parade, but I wouldn't put too much stock into what is a single, poorly executed work of art, which is no more eyewitness than any other depiction. That carving could very well just be a very poorly done crucifixion scene, and it probably is, given that the arms are outstretched. I've heard of crucifixion, and I've heard of impalement, I've never heard of anyone being impaled with their arms in the outstreched crucifixion position.
Also, I believe that the practice of crucifixion is also attested to by other sources (as is impalement). But we discussed on another thread that there was no uniform code of roman punishment, with magistrates being free to sentence people to whatever gruesome fate floated their boat.

 

[Godless Raven]

Jesus takes it in the ass like a fucking champ!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Evidence? Did they find the body and Temperance Brennan is finding the cause of death?

The story seems pretty clear. He didn't die on the cross and left after being put in a cave. The people just went bonkers when he came "back", and he replied, why would you look among the dead for the living... ie...

"I'm not fucking dead you assholes!" Luke 24:5

 

[credoconsolans]

Yeah, I hate to rain on anyone's impalement parade, but I wouldn't put too much stock into what is a single, poorly executed work of art, which is no more eyewitness than any other depiction. That carving could very well just be a very poorly done crucifixion scene, and it probably is, given that the arms are outstretched. I've heard of crucifixion, and I've heard of impalement, I've never heard of anyone being impaled with their arms in the outstreched crucifixion position.
Also, I believe that the practice of crucifixion is also attested to by other sources (as is impalement). But we discussed on another thread that there was no uniform code of roman punishment, with magistrates being free to sentence people to whatever gruesome fate floated their boat.

Except the carved gem isn't poorly done. It's quite well done and specific. His legs were drawn in a VERY spread-eagle position. There is no ambiguity to it at all. No mistaking the position. Every word used to describe what Jesus was executed with refers to a pole or stake. Never a cross. The arms being outstretched might have just been artistic license.

 

[bilby]

What is the point of discussing how a person was killed, when there is no certainty whatsoever that they ever even existed?

Or is this a discussion about what is or is not canon in the body of fiction that is Christianity? Because it seems unarguable to me that canon dictates that JC was crucified - that's how he is almost always depicted as dying, so any fanfic in which he dies by other means is clearly not canon.

 

[Sarpedon]

Except the carved gem isn't poorly done. It's quite well done and specific. His legs were drawn in a VERY spread-eagle position. There is no ambiguity to it at all. No mistaking the position. Every word used to describe what Jesus was executed with refers to a pole or stake. Never a cross. The arms being outstretched might have just been artistic license.

Ancient art is often stylized. The postures people are drawn in are often conventional, rather than true to life. I see the same carving you do. What I see is simply someone drawn as if standing, with the cross added. I see no reason to suppose this is anything more than bad art. Why do you accept that the arms might be 'artistic license' but not the legs? I'm not even relying on artistic license, just a common art convention in ancient times. The fact is that the ancients were very poor at representing 3 dimensional figures as two dimensional art. They used color, form and conventional poses in ways that are unfamiliar to us, accustomed as we are to greater realism, and this sometimes leads us to incorrect conclusions about them. This is hardly the first time I've seen this. Further, 3rd rate artists often have trouble depicting new scenes that they haven't practiced, and will do things like that: draw what they know how to draw, then add extra elements to make it fit the subject matter. Later, crucifixion scenes became quite common, and artists would have practiced them from their training. But it is easy to imagine that before the convention existed, artists might not have practiced drawing crucifixions, just as today's students don't practice drawing lethal injection scenes.

I seem to recall from my gospel: "And what should be done to Jesus, called Christ? Let him be crucified!" So not EVERY word refers to a stake, rather than a cross. Saying that someone should be crucified implies a cross. The question of why it was called a stake is beyond my ken, as I am more familiar with ancient art than with ancient Greek. That there are inconsistencies in the Bible come as no surprise. Perhaps there was a different version of the story where he was impaled instead. But the dominant story is that he was crucified, and this one badly executed carving won't change that. Like others have said, there is no 'correct' version of a fictitious story, only the dominant one. While it may be interesting to note that there are different versions, to state that this version disproves the other one is silly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is the point of discussing how a person was killed, when there is no certainty whatsoever that they ever even existed?

Maybe just to sow a sliver of doubt?

If we can get the sadists to question HOW Jesus died for their sins, maybe they'll start to wonder at what makes them so certain THAT Jesus died for their sins?

It works in those lawyer shows all the time. You find that one silly detail in the person's story that itches, and you scratch at it, and suddenly the entire conspiracy is revealed.

Why didn't Corporal Santiago call home to say he was being transferred?
How did Phelps kill all his IMF team members without an accomplice?
Who the hell pays for parking before a shooting spree?
Why in didn't you tell me Darth Vader was my father?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have heard the argument made that the reason Jesus was crucified was that it's the most horrific form of death there is and that's how much he loved us to put him through that level of sacrifice in order to absolve us from out sins (BTW, once again I'd like to say thanks a whole shitload to Eve for eating the apple and putting us in this position in the first place ... bitch ). That's easily countered by pointing out all the worse ways to die than crucifiction.

If, however, Jesus loved us so much that he let someone ram a stake up his ass and hang him in the air by that, it gives that argument a lot more credulity because that's pretty fucking nasty - it's even worse than being stabbed. Then the Church Fathers wanted to give their religion more of a PG rating so that they could market it to kids, so they made his death scene more innocuous.

 

[credoconsolans]

Except the carved gem isn't poorly done. It's quite well done and specific. His legs were drawn in a VERY spread-eagle position. There is no ambiguity to it at all. No mistaking the position. Every word used to describe what Jesus was executed with refers to a pole or stake. Never a cross. The arms being outstretched might have just been artistic license.

Ancient art is often stylized. The postures people are drawn in are often conventional, rather than true to life. I see the same carving you do. What I see is simply someone drawn as if standing, with the cross added. .

I find it hard to believe you're looking at this and think this is a natural pose for a man standing:



I don't find it silly that later Christian followers decided to choose a more dignified execution symbol than being stuck up the ass. I find it amusing, as it's quite probable that they did.

 

[abaddon]

Why are the arms dangling from a horizontal beam if he’s impaled instead of crucified?

And it might just be a letter but then it also might be the cross above his head too.

Looks like a stylized piece of art with little concern about exactness of details, just as Sarpedon said. They wanted to include legs AND a pole, so that required parting the legs some to include all the importantly meaningful items (body and cross) rather than merely achieving a lifelike representation.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm amazed that you can look at that and think it is a realistic depiction of anything, and the only thing that could account for the strangeness of the pose is that he has a stake up his ass. Again, if it were an impalement, why the cross bar? Where would it even be attached? I also note that the top of the stake is visible above Jesus' head. Are you suggesting that he was impaled entirely? The only reason that the bottom of the 'stake' is so prominent is that it was so deeply excised that it went through the medium. The crossbar and the end of the 'stake' above are less deeply incised. Given the quality of the craftsmanship, I am not inclined to believe that it was deliberate.

 

[Bronzeage]

Ancient art is often stylized. The postures people are drawn in are often conventional, rather than true to life. I see the same carving you do. What I see is simply someone drawn as if standing, with the cross added. .

I find it hard to believe you're looking at this and think this is a natural pose for a man standing:

[ATTA
I don't find it silly that later Christian followers decided to choose a more dignified execution symbol than being stuck up the ass. I find it amusing, as it's quite probable that they did.

This is not a depiction of an impalement, for the obvious reasons.

The traditional religious images of the Crucifixion always show the nails through the palm of the hands, which is not technically feasible, because the nail would pull through the muscle tissue and the condemned man would be left hanging upside down, held by the nails through his feet. Even for the Romans, this was a bit much.

The Romans consider the wrist to be a part of the hand, not a separate body part, so "a nail through the hand," could be a nail through the wrist joint. This probably hurts worse, but could support the weight of a sagging body.

If there was a chance of a nail pulling through, it would be expedient to bind the forearms to the cross, just for a little added security.

 

[KeepTalking]

Why are the arms dangling from a horizontal beam if he’s impaled instead of crucified?

And it might just be a letter but then it also might be the cross above his head too.

Looks like a stylized piece of art with little concern about exactness of details, just as Sarpedon said. They wanted to include legs AND a pole, so that required parting the legs some to include all the importantly meaningful items (body and cross) rather than merely achieving a lifelike representation.

Also, what's the deal with his head? It's much to far above his body to be attached, unless he was hanged first...

Wait, that must be it! Everyone is wrong, but most people are also right. This amazing piece of art shows us that the only possible explanation, given all available evidence, is that Jesus was first hanged, then decapitated, then impaled, then crucified.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I smell a Mel Gibson remake comin' up. The Impaction of the Christ: Poly of Polies II.

 

[credoconsolans]

Why are the arms dangling from a horizontal beam if he’s impaled instead of crucified?

And it might just be a letter but then it also might be the cross above his head too.

Looks like a stylized piece of art with little concern about exactness of details, just as Sarpedon said. They wanted to include legs AND a pole, so that required parting the legs some to include all the importantly meaningful items (body and cross) rather than merely achieving a lifelike representation.

I'm amazed that you can look at that and think it is a realistic depiction of anything, and the only thing that could account for the strangeness of the pose is that he has a stake up his ass. Again, if it were an impalement, why the cross bar? Where would it even be attached? I also note that the top of the stake is visible above Jesus' head. Are you suggesting that he was impaled entirely? The only reason that the bottom of the 'stake' is so prominent is that it was so deeply excised that it went through the medium. The crossbar and the end of the 'stake' above are less deeply incised. Given the quality of the craftsmanship, I am not inclined to believe that it was deliberate.

Remember what the technique was for. Not just to kill someone, but for them to die slowly. You impale a guy up the ass and hoist him up and that's all she wrote.

I'm not sure of the actual technique, but the hands were bound in a way that the person being executed could haul himself up off the pike just enough to keep from fatal insertion. Of course, eventually he gets tired...

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm amazed that you can look at that and think it is a realistic depiction of anything, and the only thing that could account for the strangeness of the pose is that he has a stake up his ass. Again, if it were an impalement, why the cross bar? Where would it even be attached? I also note that the top of the stake is visible above Jesus' head. Are you suggesting that he was impaled entirely? The only reason that the bottom of the 'stake' is so prominent is that it was so deeply excised that it went through the medium. The crossbar and the end of the 'stake' above are less deeply incised. Given the quality of the craftsmanship, I am not inclined to believe that it was deliberate.

Remember what the technique was for. Not just to kill someone, but for them to die slowly. You impale a guy up the ass and hoist him up and that's all she wrote.

I'm not sure of the actual technique, but the hands were bound in a way that the person being executed could haul himself up off the pike just enough to keep from fatal insertion. Of course, eventually he gets tired...

I am fairly familiar with ancient Roman history, and I've seen references to impalement before. As I recall, most sources refer to a sharpened pole, which would be about 6 inches in in diameter. The victim would be bound hand and foot and be laid over the pole, face down, or face up. It would appear to be a slow agonizing death, but as with most of these things, shock sets in and the poor bastard really doesn't feel much after that. What the victim feels is not all that important, because this is a public spectacle.

I tried to do some research on this subject, but it seems anal impalement is such a popular theme for hard core gay porn, it's really not worth the time to wade through pages of gladiators being punished, to try and find any practical answers.