Roman nails that a new documentary claims could have been used to crucify Jesus Christ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;29138262]Dude, hawkers have been selling bits of rusted iron to pilgrims for centuries.[/QUOTE] Not to mention the 50 tons of rotted wood in the form of "pieces of the true cross."

I should forge some Roman nails and sell em on Ebay, probably gain a fortune off em.

I'm still looking for Jesus' foreskin.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29136959]again, all conjecture. Can you even prove there was a Jesus nailed to a cross?[/QUOTE] Uh... there is no debate that there was a Jesus and that he was executed. It's been documented and no one argues that.

Clone Jesus with any blood found on the nails.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29136959]again, all conjecture. Can you even prove there was a Jesus nailed to a cross?[/QUOTE] Sorry, photographs did not exist, nor are the witnesses left alive. Hmm, I don't think the Roman capital city was sacked by the Visigoths. There's no witnesses, there's no photographs of it.

I thought it was accepted that Jesus Christ existed and the question was if he was actually all that he's cracked up to be [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] but ok

[QUOTE=Justjake274;29137104]Most likely, there WAS a Jesus Christ, but only some people believed he had any significance[/QUOTE] There was a jesus christ born in 3BC

I'm just gonna wait and see if any major Christian groups abandon NOMA and declare this to be absolute proof in their favour...

[quote]The nails were not photographed at the time that they were found, [b]and there is no record of what was done with them[/b], according to the documentary. At around the same time as the excavation, two ancient nails from the Second Temple period were delivered to a Tel Aviv University lab from Jerusalem and remained there since then.[/quote] Uh...

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29136959]again, all conjecture. Can you even prove there was a Jesus nailed to a cross?[/QUOTE] You're telling me the entire time the Romans were around they didn't crucify one guy named Jesus? I doubt these nails have any significance to anything though.

Aired on 4/20, I know atleast a few will laugh at it.

These are some far fetched conclusions right there. Crucifixion was popular during the Roman rule of the ancient Levant, especially in the rebellious province of Judea. Two violent revolts against the Roman rule by the Jewish population of the province resulted at hundreds (at least) getting crucified. That 'archeologist', that talks about the discovery in the OP article is taking huge logical leaps to get to his conclusion. A tomb with the name "Caiaphas" is found in it near Jerusalem. Claiming it must to be [i]the[/i] Caiaphas without any evidence, is like archeologists finding a tomb of a guy named Moses saying it's [i]the[/i] Moses. Another point is that since many people were crucified, crucifixion wasn't a unique punishment for Jesus - so naturally many people had "crucifixion nails". There is almost no doubt though, the Jesus mentioned in the gospel existed, but claiming such esoteric item was to be found (Or can be found/identified) is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;29141085]Uh... there is no debate that there was a Jesus and that he was executed. It's been documented and no one argues that.[/QUOTE] Not sure how that's possible since "Jesus Christ" isn't even a person's name [quote]“Jesus” (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšûă‘).meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)". "Christ" (pronounced /ˈkraɪst/) is derived from the Greek Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one", a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah. In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible (written well over a century before the time of Jesus), the word Christ was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew word Māšîaḥ. In Matthew 16:16, Apostle Peter's profession: "You are the Christ" identifies Jesus as the Messiah. In post-biblical usage Christ became a name, one part of the name "Jesus Christ", but originally it was a title (the Messiah) and not a name.[/quote]

There's no proof Jesus ever existed end of story

[QUOTE=XxTheAvengerxX;29142823]There's no proof Jesus ever existed end of story[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? There's plenty of proof. Heck, I remember reading about Jesus Christ getting ran over by a car a few months back.

I bet even Jesus himself would think that this shit is dumb. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=XxTheAvengerxX;29142823]There's no proof Jesus ever existed end of story[/QUOTE] The guy just told people fairy tales, and the world went mad about them.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;29141085]Uh... there is no debate that there was a Jesus and that he was executed. It's been documented and no one argues that.[/QUOTE] There is a lot of debate about the existence of Jesus Christ, and it really adds up to him not existing.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29142708]Not sure how that's possible since "Jesus Christ" isn't even a person's name[/QUOTE] Are you trying to be a smartass? I obviously did not mean the name Jesus in a literal sense but the actual person. No shit the man's name wasn't actually Jesus.

[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;29143238]Are you trying to be a smartass? I obviously did not mean the name Jesus in a literal sense but the actual person. No shit the man's name wasn't actually Jesus.[/QUOTE] So if there is detailed historical record that proves his existence why is his name not known Because as it stands now it could quite literally be about any generic person from that time period who got crucified, which is a lot of people

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29142708]Not sure how that's possible since "Jesus Christ" isn't even a person's name[/QUOTE] I have no idea about relevant naming conventions and I'm not planning on learning or getting into a serious argument on this topic, but considering there are plenty of schmucks who are remembered by titles that's not really a case for saying the dude didn't exist. Also if you're acknowledging a guy going by that name existed and doubt the myths surrounding him then he really would just be a guy who talked some shit and got crucified, kinda like Masamune without the myths is just some guy who talked some shit and made some swords. Ancient history and modern history are two entirely different beasts. With modern shit we are way more strict and can actually confirm things like whether or not Abraham Lincoln was actually two deformed men tied together under a suit. With ye olde crap, it's more freeform and less giving of a rat's ass. I mean, you could doubt Ctesibius was a single dude and not a team of people and there'd be no way to really conclusively prove otherwise, but what do you gain for arguing the point?

every single church in italy has a nail that went through jesus's flesh. how nailed did the poor man get?

There probably was someone called "Jesus Christ" but it's not like he was the son of god or had any super powers like that. He probably had schizophrenia before they knew what it was.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29143279]So if there is detailed historical record that proves his existence why is his name not known Because as it stands now it could quite literally be about any generic person from that time period who got crucified, which is a lot of people[/QUOTE] Actually, a Jesus was mentioned in the historical records. Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historian who lived at the 1st century E.C., wrote about him at least twice, as far as I know. He wrote, for instance: [quote=Josephus Flavius in the Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX, chapter 9 p. 1]AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the [b]brother of Jesus, who was called Christ[/b], whose name was James[/quote] [url="Source"]http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm[/url] The passage above is considered reliable by most of scholars Some other instances also exist, but they are more debatable. Now, I don't claim that the Jesus discussed above is the Jesus in the gospel, but it definitely seems like it. [QUOTE=HolyCrusade;29143238]Are you trying to be a smartass? I obviously did not mean the name Jesus in a literal sense but the actual person. No shit the man's name wasn't actually Jesus.[/QUOTE] The man's name was probably Yeshu'a (a form derived from Yehoshua - Joshua).

[QUOTE=Justjake274;29137104]Most likely, there WAS a Jesus Christ, but only some people believed he had any significance[/QUOTE] No there really isn't any proof outside the bible. There's only 3 sources that record a man named Jesus in the region in that time frame. They didn't even give him any sort of significance in anyway.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;29137177]They could have been used to crucify any of the thousands of people that were crucified during that time, why is it more likely to be Jesus than anyone else?[/QUOTE] They tied people to the crucifix, so that they would slowly, painfully die from starvation, dehydration, and infection. However, if they wanted someone dead fast, they would nail them. Anyway, if these nails were actually used on someone, you would find petrified bone fragments on the surface of the nail.

I'd be surprised of Jesus never existed, mythology is often full of exaggerated retelling of real events. Seems more plausible than that entire thing simply being made up by some ancient L. Ron Hubbard.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29140054]Not to mention the 50 tons of rotted wood in the form of "pieces of the true cross."[/QUOTE] Lest we not forget that two different churches claimed to have John the Baptist's head

I think Jesus was real but he was just making up some shit for some reason

[QUOTE=Uh-huh;29144656]Actually, a Jesus was mentioned in the historical records. Josephus Flavius, a Jewish historian who lived at the 1st century E.C., wrote about him at least twice, as far as I know. He wrote, for instance: [url="Source"]http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm[/url] The passage above is considered reliable by most of scholars Some other instances also exist, but they are more debatable. Now, I don't claim that the Jesus discussed above is the Jesus in the gospel, but it definitely seems like it. The man's name was probably Yeshu'a (a form derived from Yehoshua - Joshua).[/QUOTE] you do realize that josephus lived a good 80 years after jesus died, right [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] all records of jesus that i've ever heard of are either not contemporary accounts or were blatantly forged by christians after the fact