Crucifixion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thoughts? Here’s mine:
This idea is so far off the Truth that I will not even bother to look at the link.
I’ll stick to Catholic teaching. Unless, of course, something comes up (personal conversation, newspaper article, …) where I feel the need to know the substance that I am arguing against.
 
After reading the article, I was convinced that this “theologian” has no clue about what he spent three and a half years and 400 pages later. He set out to find answers and came up with might haves and possibles. I failed to find any true reason to believe that our Christ did not die on the cross as the Church has taught for 2000 years. The only “Little Evidence” here is any substantial truth to what was stated.
 
Faith1960 said:
Has anybody read about the stunning claim by Gunnar Samuelsson, a theologian from the University of Gothenburg that Jesus may not have died on the cross but by some other means? Story here: aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
That’s old news. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been maintaining that very position for decades (cf. watchtower.org/e/200604a/article_01.htm). I don’t know why this guy thinks he’s making an original contribution to the field.

Besides, Leviticus 1:17 says, in reference to a bird sacrifice, “he shall tear it by its wings, but shall not divide it asunder”. Isn’t this a foreshadowing of Jesus’ outstretched arms pulled apart on a crossbeam?
 
Eh… the guy is simply speculating. He has no idea of what actually happened. His comparison of Christ’s punishment with that of prisoners of war seems baseless. Jesus was condemned in a formal procedure involving the entire community. In the case of prisoners of war, they are essentially anonymous, and no one spoke on their behalf. It seems only sensible that a more formal punishment would be meted out to someone with a formal conviction, rather than simply being captured on the battlefield.
 
He lost all credibility with me, as soon as i saw he was a “theologian”. Theologian is a title, people like to give themselves, who think their opinions are more valid than everyone Else’s. Or…They are failed historians who can’t find any proof of what they say.
 
Faith1960 said:
Has anybody read about the stunning claim by Gunnar Samuelsson, a theologian from the University of Gothenburg that Jesus may not have died on the cross but by some other means? Story here: aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Kinda makes the martyrdom of those original apostles seem like a waste.
 
latin_rite said:
He lost all credibility with me, as soon as i saw he was a “theologian”. Theologian is a title, people like to give themselves, who think their opinions are more valid than everyone Else’s. Or…They are failed historians who can’t find any proof of what they say.
Click to expand...
hmm… I think Theology as an academic discipline is distinct from History. Certainly it involves a level of philosophy which is not part of the field of history. Theology as a field of study is legitimate in its own right, apart from history or philosophy. It is highly specialized.

That said, just because someone is a theologian doesn’t mean that their analysis or opinion is correct.
 
Dale_M said:
hmm… I think Theology as an academic discipline is distinct from History. Certainly it involves a level of philosophy which is not part of the field of history. Theology as a field of study is legitimate in its own right, apart from history or philosophy. It is highly specialized.

That said, just because someone is a theologian doesn’t mean that their analysis or opinion is correct.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that some people probably label themselves theologians when they really aren’t.
 
John 20:25 mentions nail holes in Jesus’ hands. In Luke 24:39 Jesus shows his hands and feet to his disciples. If his feet weren’t pierced, why show his feet?
Code: 
Likewise in John 19:32-33 the thieves legs are broken to hasten their deaths; another sign that they were being crucified, using their legs to push upwards to breath.

 If Jesus is suspended on this stavros by nails through his hands and feet, how can that not be called crucifixion?
 
He’s playing with the wording of the passages, as a linguist might do. However, his assertion that there is little direct evidence to the Roman preference to crucifixion is specious. Nero and many of the emperors used crosses for revolutionaries, dissenters, and Christians, especially in the Colosseum. Further, his idea that Christ could have been anything other than crucified is ridiculous, because of the nail marks mentioned in the Gospels. However, he may be correct that the crossbeam is an incorrect wording, but crucifixion on a stake would not have been a Roman favorite.
 
I didn’t even read the link. It’s clearly the standard liberal theologian garbage of speculation and tearing down the Church in whatever way they feel “called” (by the devil) to do.

The Church for 2,000 years has always taught it was a cross in art, tradition, fathers, history, and even Scripture (see below).
antonivs said:
John 20:25 mentions nail holes in Jesus’ hands. In Luke 24:39 Jesus shows his hands and feet to his disciples. If his feet weren’t pierced, why show his feet?
Code: 
Likewise in John 19:32-33 the thieves legs are broken to hasten their deaths; another sign that they were being crucified, using their legs to push upwards to breath.

 If Jesus is suspended on this stavros by nails through his hands and feet, how can that not be called crucifixion?
Click to expand...
John explicitly uses the plural, “nails in his hands,” which wouldn’t make sense if his hands were on an upright stake. Further, Matthew says the sign was placed “above his head,” not above his hands (which would make more sense, if true), again refuting the “stake not cross” theory (which the JWs promote).
 
Faith1960 said:
Has anybody read about the stunning claim by Gunnar Samuelsson, a theologian from the University of Gothenburg that Jesus may not have died on the cross but by some other means? Story here: aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
  • **Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), Against Heresies 2.24.4: **“The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails.”
  • **Justin Martyr (103-165), Dialog with Trypho 91: *"And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, * ‘From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath, and for the seasonable fruits of the sun, and for the coming together of the months, and for the heights of the everlasting mountains, and for the heights of the hills, and for the ever-flowing rivers, and for the fruits of the fatness of the earth; and let the things accepted by Him who appeared in the bush come on the head and crown of Joseph. Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is [like] the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an unicorn: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.’ [Deuteronomy 33:13-17] Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns."
  • **Tertullian (c. 160-c.220), The Chaplet 3: **“At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.”
So, Irenaeus’ and Justin’s descriptions are not consistent with a mere pole.

Tertullian’s reference doesn’t make much sense if “the sign” consisted merely of a vertical wipe of the fingertip from hairline to nosebridge - unless perhaps “the sign” were a chi-rho or an ichthys.
 
Faith1960 said:
Has anybody read about the stunning claim by Gunnar Samuelsson, a theologian from the University of Gothenburg that Jesus may not have died on the cross but by some other means? Story here: aolnews.com/nation/article/little-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar/19530666?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flittle-evidence-jesus-died-on-a-cross-says-swedish-scholar%2F19530666

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
What is “stunning” about silly lies which are the desparate claims of those who hate Christianity.
 
thistle said:
What is “stunning” about silly lies which are the desparate claims of those who hate Christianity.
Click to expand...
I hate it when a “theologian” is given credit for some claim one anti-christian claim or another. It makes it sound like the person somehow has some authority and represents an actual “Christian” view point.

Chuck
 
clmowry said:
I hate it when a “theologian” is given credit for some claim one anti-christian claim or another. It makes it sound like the person somehow has some authority and represents an actual “Christian” view point.

Chuck
Click to expand...
This is the same stuff the JW’s would most likely consider believing. There is much more fact and evidence, and common sense to suggest Christ was put to death on a Crucifix rather than a stake.
 
I imagine he never studied the Shroud of Turin, which clearly shows the image of a man crucified exactly as described in Scripture and Tradition.
 
SF3CHURCH said:
I imagine he never studied the Shroud of Turin, which clearly shows the image of a man crucified exactly as described in Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the Church has never authenticated the Shroud, at least not yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top