Nebraska Nada, leave Titus alone. He was a good guy.
"Jesus did not die on the cross" (Gunnar Samuelsson)
I believe he still is a good guy...
Where do download this book Samuelsson in pdf or word format text?
Now Ive seen in the British Museum a moderate sized cross with a circle that I belive is called a Celtic Cross, this artifact predated Christs execution by some considerable number of years, so I do feel both the society, and Hislop have some legitamate reason to associate the cross with Tammuz the Sun god worship, the circle being the sun and the cross being the sacred "T" of Tammuz.
And why therefore would Jehovah have his son associated with such a pagan religious image?
Having said that, is it not conceiveable that as this was Satans finest hour, the brusing of the heel, that the implement of Christs suffering could indeed be a symbal or identifying mark of the false god, Satan, who arranged such? That Satan could use his device to take the life of the son of God and to be perpetually worshipped for it afterwards?
My point being that even if the Romans did use the cross, this doesnt make the cross a "Christian" image as it was indeed Satans tool and one that was previously associated with sun worship.
Hang on a minute. Don't jump the gun. This can be very misleading.
Firstly, yes victims were made to carry a torture stake (Stauros) to the place of execution. BUT, once at the place of execution, a cross beam was used to crucify the victim/prisoner.
We know that Crassus crucified thousands of slaves.
Why would the WT$ have us believe an exception would be made in the case of Jesus?
To avoid using a pagan symbol?
Of course the Romans used crosses, they were after all.......Pagans. And a cross is the obvious shape to nail a man to.
I think that Black Sheep has put it quite succinctly. Being impaled and being crucified are two completely different things.
Come on, we all know what's involved in being impaled right?
Just look at Black Sheeps picture.
Leolaia : I wonder if Samuelsson does cover the lex Puteoli text in his survey.
Leo, with a PDF copy of Crucifixion in Antiquity available it can be seen that Samuelsson does cover the lex Puteoli text (pp199-201) as shown below:
Last but not least, there is a marble plate with a lex locationis (legal rules for contractors). The inscription (probably from the first century C.E.) was found in Pozzuoli (the ancient colony of Puteoli) and mentions both crux and patibulum in the same sentence in an intriguing way. The text is of special interest for the present investigation since it is a lex, but it is not easy to interpret. John Granger Cook uses the tablet as an indication, among others, of the custom to make the victim carry his/her own crossbeam. The text contains regulations connected with executions. Using the commonly abbreviated inscription orthography, the engraver left out several endings, important for the present investigation, that would be helpful in determining what the text describes. ...
In the end, the text with potential of being the missing evidence for a custom of carrying a patibulum towards a waiting crux is seriously weakened due to the uncertainty of the abbreviated forms and the lack of other texts which reveal that there was a custom of letting the condemned himself carry the crossbeam toward the awaiting bare pole and subsequently be attached to it.
Cook bases his translation of the text on a reconstruction that reads the crucial parts of the text as follows: in cruc[em\ patibul[um] agere ... (to bring the patibulum to the cross . . . ) . The meaning of this sentence is rather clear-cut in the light of a traditional view of crucifixion - and the assumed custom of "cross-bearing." When the reader comes a few lines further and the inscription mentions that the executioner has to erect some crux and to acquire nails (line 12) the image is unmistakable. However, if the reading continues and the reader sees that the executioner besides the nails has to acquire pitch, wax, and candles (absent in a traditional understanding of crucifixion), the picture becomes blurred. If the inscription is also read in the light of uncertainty connected with the texts expressed by the present investigation, the clarity fades significantly.
Cook mentions briefly in a footnote a different reconstruction of line 9. The interpretation of the text would head in another direction if taken as patibul[atum]. Thereby it becomes a generic term for the torture of execution victims, who were taken to the crux. Cook also mentions briefly the dilemma with the plural case of the verb ferre in line 10. The strophe obviously could not refer to a victim who carries his patibulum (in the sense "crossbeam") toward the execution place where the rest of the execution tool (crux) awaits. It is the workers, QUAE PATIBUL FERUNT (who [plural] bring the patibul[ ]), who shall be paid. It refers to several people who bring the patibul[um], or preferably the victim - patibul[atum] -, toward the execution place.
It is also possible to read the strophe VOLET ITA SUPPLIC SUMET SI IN CRUC PATIBUL AGERE as referring to the act of bringing the slave to a crux or a patibulum. Such a reading coheres better with the accounts of the literary context than Cook's does.
I've often thought that "the sign of the son of man" that is due to appear in heaven could so aptly be a cross.
What other symbol is so universally recognised as being a symbol of Christ?
It would certainly perplex the JW's if this was to happen!
The gospel of John believed there were separate NAILS in each hand as follows:
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus [a] ), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put myfinger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”