I do not know you wife's research but this is what I have heard the most lately. We know from ancient texts that Roman crosses consisted of two pieces. The stipes was the upright piece, fixed in the ground, often permanently. In restless areas and times with constant executions there could have been whole groves of them. The horizontal piece was called the patibulum; it weighed about a hundred pounds or so, and the condemned person was usually forced to carry it to the place of execution. Hence his name, the patibulatus. After the patibulatus carried the crosspiece of his cross out to the field of execution, heâd be attached to it with ropes or with nailsâhence the term crucifixio, from crux, cross, and figo, to affix. Then heâd be hauled up so that the patibulum could be fastened to the stipes. We tend to think of the two pieces being mortised into each other to form the familiar Latin-cross shape ( â ). More probably the Roman army carpenters, with hundreds and thousands of crosses to make, didnât bother with that kind of fancy joinery. They probably just fixed a peg in the top of the stipes and bored a hole in the patibulum; that would make it easier to assemble the cross in a single motion, and it would make the weight of the crossbeam and the crucified man hold the cross together; it would result in a shape like the Greek letter tau ( T ).[1] 1. Kevin O. Johnson. Rosary: Mysteries, Meditations, and the Telling of the Beads. (Dallas: Pangaeus Press, 1997), 287â288. I have seen and read the cites to those ancient texts by other authors. I can not vouch for the authenticity though. By the way you were get more info than you need just by searching on roman crucifixion and crucifiction.
I asked my wife if she had a ready copy of her thesis I could use for reference here. Suffice it to say we moved a number of months ago, and although our million boxes have dwindled to a more comfortable thousand, there's no telling where it is. Should it manifest I'll see what I can do about better quoting it here. This is the most widely accepted theory. The problem with this type of research is that most of these findings are derived from someone who quoted someone who quoted someone else, so then you need to begin examining the potential holes in the chain. This paper is a pretty good example. It reasonably well written, liberal with quotes and references (like everyone's professor loves to see), yet when you look a little closer, you have Gerard Sloyan mentioned right off the bat quoting another historical reference; and oh my! look where he got his Ph.D. from. No extrapolation at all is required to infer an immediate conflict of interest in Sloyan's scholarship, despite his obvious expertise in the field. However, something the paper does point us toward is that there are indeed two primary descriptive historical references for crucification (Josephus and Seneca), and neither of them really went out of their way to detail it, because it was so common they were naturally more interested in describing its overall barbarity and horror than actual mechanics. So for instance, while you can argue something like, "...Seneca stated the Romans were liberal in experimenting with the methods and types of crucification and flat-out mentions a crossbeam, so it stands to reason it was used...", by your own account, the sheer proliferation of crucification taking place indicates people were far more likely nailed to the first available tree, stake, or wall rather than those Roman soldiers abiding with some consistent ritual according to the "Official Roman Crucification Manual" or whatever. Meanwhile, a thousand years later or so once the Crusades and Inquisition began Christianizing most of Europe by force, and we realize how nearly every pagan community from Celts, to Germanics, to the Norse had some variation of an elemental cross in their town square that the Vatican obviously needed to replace with a "Christian symbol" (pretty much the same way Christmas originated, and the way ritual communion replaced cakes and ale because they couldn't outright eradicate the custom), no leap of imagination is necessary to make the connection (unsurprisingly, very few of these crosses survived, and the ones that did quite naturally were stone). And although I can produce very little scholastic evidence for this theory, while taking into account all the other atrocities the Inquisition meted out, it also takes very little imagination to think the pagan crosses may have been used during this rampage to crucify people as examples. So did Romans crucify people on "T" crosses? Almost assuredly, yet the scholastic and archaeological evidence to support that this was the common method of crucification is sparse at best. Most indicators point toward a single pole the person was forced to drag to their place of execution to then be nailed to after they were flogged. Considering the startling volume of crucification being carried out at the time, this would have logically been the much more efficient method of going about it.
you have got to be kidding me. JfF are not jews, they are christians. what you see on that sight has nothing to do with Judaism. asking them for an opinion on the jewish view of the trinity is like asking a muslim to explain the taste of a pork schnitzel wrapped in bacon. if you want to debate this issue, please, at least do some legitimate research. a decent place to start is http://www.jewsforjudaism.org .
very nice posts, welo, and that statement is amazingly true. i look at khabbalistic judaism taken to its furthest reaches and i find...buddhism taken to its furthest reaches. yet khabbalists start from the premise there is G-d and buddhists start with a deityless premise. this is very true. i do not have a home large enough to contain all Talmudic writings and all the Torah commentaries that have been produced through the Millenia. the irony of all that writing is all the stuff "missing" from Torah itself: it has no vowels! that the (arguably) most influential religious text of all time is missing 20% of its letters is a real mindbender if you leave yourself open to the possible implications. it can lead to some...interesting...interpretations.
jem, Unfortunately I have not had much time to respond but I see the subject has moved away a little, although the judeo-christians are still causing you difficulties it seems. As you are getting wrecked on the question of jewish/christian associations, I thought I may as well add to your problems nevertheless I find it rather strange that you should consider the Declaration of Independence is not what it is..... a written document and statement which (for the grounding of a great civilisation is as vitally an important a document there could ever be ) omits an unconditional God, but rather specifically ties Nature to a god. Of deistic intent because of its clarity that the people should determine and be in control of their own destinies, because religion was so variable and that you were persecuted for belief, god had apparently left humanity to determine for themselves. There's nothing fantasized in that. If anything you could perhaps argue it to be a Pantheists' statement, but it is most definitely not âchristian founded". Stranger still, your inference is the Declaration confirms the USA is based upon a particular religious 'system', but for this to be true you need reasons which would require you to attach additional phrases to the actual wording of the document - you would have to alter the text of the Declaration of Independence to make your argument stand. Then in context also, if it were the case that there was an overwhelming predominance of christianity (whatever that may be defined as, would it be the Puritan type?) at the time, which was directing itself as a 'system', which would supply the necessary principles for a great nation to be based upon, which you say other Founding Fathers held to be.... why oh why is it not evidently stated so in the document??? An expression of a christian god would have been easy to make, as I said before they could have written something as simple as, God (as unconditional). Or Creator God, God and his son jesus christ etc etc. They didn't. They did not refer to the god head. Why not?? That the USA is based upon judaeo-christian (or christian) standards or ideals and that such ideals when laid down include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness⦠is not so. These may be standards adopted by christianity, but they were not invented by, nor do they belong to christianity as its property. They exist independently as concepts and irrespective of the need for a religion of any sort. That christianity made it possible for the meanings of these words to be conceived of, would say that you would also need christianity to conceive of all words including Death, Captivity and the Imposition of Misery, (which I suggest it relates to very well indeed). Religion is not required to define the meaning of words, even though it would like to be. A 'system' for the bedrock of America would be the very meanings of the words themselves, not various or unnecessary definitions placed on them by any religious intent. No it isn't I never made an argument for that nor mentioned the word. You are doing the cart before the horse trick here. Earlier civilisations were well aware of the concepts and benefits apparent in 'Respect for individuals and the freedom of speech, government'... etc well before christianity of any kind surreptitiously attached itself to these and other ideals. jem, the concept God is not the same thing as a christian religion. That many people believed in A GOD is not the question. That IS evident in the Declaration of Independence. That the USA set itself on a bedrock of the bible, god and christianity is without question wrong. 'It' refused to do so. That it's people became christian is a stretch of a definition. I would suggest that it's people are overwhelmingly "religious" and profess to a liberal christian doctrine of many sects, which include catholic, baptist etc etc. all holding different beliefs and standards... is more descriptive of this so called christianity. If christianity is such a good basis for a country to base its ideals from, why were the early settlers fleeing from a "christian" country !!?? Abraham Lincoln was yet another in a long line of great leaders who was not prepared to tie down America to a specific 'system' which was based on christian religion or any other. "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." It's ok. USA is a Great Nation despite religion and not because of it.
No this is over grumpy old man. With this final post, I nail the coffin of your integrity and manhood. Youâre obviously a grumpy old man who canât get laid, so you have to resort to having rape fantasies. Are having rape fantasies ok in the religious worldview you came into this thread to defend? And to detail your rape fantasies in such a public forum, thatâs sick â I bet you foamed at the mouth while you typed that in. Furthermore, you obliviously cannot argue or fight man-to-man you resort to threatening other people whoâre not even involved in the argument. In a previous thread, you had wished death to my unborn child over a disagreement (and you proclaim yourself to be pro-life?). And then you PM me with more threats. Youâre obliviously a total psycho - Iâm glad that Iâve exposed that to everyone. With your depravity and hypocrisy exposed, you have nothing to cling to â itâs over. This is my last post at ET. I canât stand to have some psychotic loser private messaging me with every kind of threat imaginable. Of course I could just stick around an continue to defeat every point TM_Direct makes, but then he would just get crazier/angrier â and I fear for the well-being of his family â heâll probably hurt them. So Iâll just leave it at this. To go out on a positive note, I have to say Iâve learned a lot about trading and that ET has definitely put money in my pocket as a result of all that Iâve learned â there are some really nice people on ET whoâre willing to help others out. Anyway this is probably a good thing, as it will allow me to devote 100% of my time to trading â take care.
It's ok. USA is a Great Nation despite religion and not because of it. _____________________________________ This couldn't be further from or more opposite to the truth. It is only a reflection of your personal reality based on your religious worldview.
Don't hold back...tell us how you really feel????? QUESTION THOUGH: You are against religion but only attack christianity with your insults?? why not judaism, hindus, islam ect????....
what a puss......this is my point...you come on strong, call me a bitch and then leave with your tail between your legs????...why do you feel it's ok for you to call me a bitch but it's not ok for me to make my comments?....you have not defeated a single point i ever made but it's noce to know you stand for nothing...i own you......once again i will invite you to come on back and apologize for your comments like i have often done, hey shit happens, but don't ever think you can make a comment or insult out of left field and not have me come back 20 fold....plus you threatened me with physical violence...like i said...I'll buy you and your mom a ticket....im nowhere near as old as you think i am so just Pm me your nearest airport ok beavis???? Of course, you could be a man and admit you were wrong ( like I have several times) and we can move on, but if you just leave like this it proves you were and still are a punk ass little coward.....