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

Actually Josephus was born a few years after Jesus' death. It's just like a historian born at 40 B.C. writing a book about Ceasar (died 44 B.C.). But that doesn't matter, really. Josephus is held very reliable by vast amount of scholars, mainly due to nearly everything in his writing matching with every other source and archeological evidence. Some sections of Josephus' work is indeed suspicioned as forged/altered, but not the one I quote (which is why I quoted it in the first place).

[QUOTE=Sanius;29137360]hahah what can you also prove that noah fit two of every animal into a boat?[/QUOTE] Ah, ah, ah, two of every [b][i]type[/i][/b].

[QUOTE=Uh-huh;29146865]Actually Josephus was born a few years after Jesus' death. It's just like a historian born at 40 B.C. writing a book about Ceasar (died 44 B.C.). But that doesn't matter, really. Josephus is held very reliable by vast amount of scholars, mainly due to nearly everything in his writing matching with every other source and archeological evidence. Some sections of Josephus' work is indeed suspicioned as forged/altered, but not the one I quote (which is why I quoted it in the first place).[/QUOTE] yes yes josephus is indeed a reliable historian and he did indeed write those words unfortunately no amount of reliability will send him back in time and make him a contemporary source, and therefor he will always be unreliable in determining the existence or nonexistence of an ancient cult leader [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=GodKing;29147382]Ah, ah, ah, two of every [b][i]type[/i][/b].[/QUOTE] i hope he remembered to bring in the phronima phronima are the best

[quote] unfortunately no amount of reliability will send him back in time and make him a contemporary source, and therefor he will always be unreliable in determining the existence or nonexistence of an ancient cult leader[/quote] Actually, Josephus being reliable, which can't be denied, is enough for determining whether [i]that[/i] Jesus existed or not. The Jesus he talked about very likely did exist, now the question is whether that's the same Jesus from the gospels, which I think is a very likely option. Now lets no forget that a lot of historical facts (or claims recognized as a fact) don't have an extremely firm grip in evidence, but base themselves on testimonies, writings etc'. The question is what do [i]you[/i] hold as enough, while dealing with ancient history, to determine what is correct and what isn't.

really the whole debate about jesus existing or not is pretty damn stupid. do you really, really, think that a group of people in Judaea, an area filled to the brim with wannabe-prophets and messiahs in the first century AD/CE/whatever, would just MAKE UP a prophet/messiah wholesale? that makes no fucking sense. why the fuck would they do this? is it really that impossible to believe that an eccentric prophet (in an area and time that was filled with them) was elevated to godhood by his followers after going through a rather nasty crucifixion? bitching about "hurrr the bible is the only source and it's unreliable because it has magical stuff in it" is idiotic, because underneath the magical shit, there are sayings and beliefs that are very likely to have been said by a real person. shit, there are groups like the Jesus Seminar that have found common sayings and the like that point to a real person saying them ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar#Seminar_proceedings[/url]). hell, even the gospels can't make up their mind as to what Jesus' role is in the grand scheme of the divine, Mark thinks he's the adopted Son of God, while John states he's a part of God that existed before the universe was created. if Jesus was made up from the start, they'd be pretty damn consistent as to his relationship with God and what he was trying to do for humankind. however, if he was a real person turned divine figure, then it's much more likely that there were many diverging beliefs as to Jesus' divine role and powers at the start (like you see in the gospels and the Pauline letters), then would be consolidated into what we know as "Jesus" today. the whole thing reeks of skepticism for the sake of it.

[QUOTE=Mikesword221;29142499]You're telling me the entire time the Romans were around they didn't crucify one guy named Jesus?[/QUOTE] his name wasn't jesus so yes

Two nails, they must have been used to crucify jesus. I know that's all I use nails for. Let's also forget that scientific studies done over 100 years ago have disproved the feasibility of nailing someone to a cross.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;29150745]Two nails, they must have been used to crucify jesus. I know that's all I use nails for.[/QUOTE] same here. last week i crucified my neighbor's daughter for being a slut that wouldn't go out with me.

[QUOTE=Ziron;29150771]same here. last week i crucified my neighbor's daughter for being a slut that wouldn't go out with me.[/QUOTE] That reminds me of one time I had to build a fence and I ran out of nails. I just hammered a few crucified homosexuals to the planks and it worked perfectly. May have been easier just to use the nails and skip the middleman.

[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 usually crucified them by tying them to a cross not nailing them.

Goddamn crucifixion is a terrible way to go.

I read some time ago that a bunch of theologians were trying to retranslate some old script describing jesus' execution. And they discovered that he wasn't crucified. Instead he was apparently impaled. Don't know how much ground it holds, but interesting none the less. Just the thought that people have used the crucifix as a symbol is completely wrong and that all the images in churches and in peoples home really should be a man on a stick is hilarious.

[QUOTE=Uh-huh;29147941]Actually, Josephus being reliable, which can't be denied, is enough for determining whether [i]that[/i] Jesus existed or not. The Jesus he talked about very likely did exist, now the question is whether that's the same Jesus from the gospels, which I think is a very likely option. Now lets no forget that a lot of historical facts (or claims recognized as a fact) don't have an extremely firm grip in evidence, but base themselves on testimonies, writings etc'. The question is what do [i]you[/i] hold as enough, while dealing with ancient history, to determine what is correct and what isn't.[/QUOTE] Why can't it be denied? You keep repeating that like it means something. It doesn't. Just because YOU trust him, doesn't make him a good source. He wasn't there. He wasn't a witness. Other historical facts in doubt that don't have that, have something wildly different to the Jesus story. [b]Fucking contemporary historians. Not people after the fact.[/b]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29136959]again, all conjecture. Can you even prove there was a Jesus nailed to a cross?[/QUOTE] What do you think they want to do with this?

You physically cannot be nailed to a cross and stay there for any length of times. The nails would rip through your hands in no time.

Might as well have been the nails used to nail hundreds of other unfortunate people to crosses, which was, afaik, a common Roman method of punishment. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29153139]You physically cannot be nailed to a cross and stay there for any length of times. The nails would rip through your hands in no time.[/QUOTE] Weren't they tied to the cross as well? Or was it JUST tied to a cross?

[QUOTE=Strongbad;29153116]What do you think they want to do with this?[/QUOTE] I should say "can you even prove there is a jesus TO nail to a cross" because that's not nearly as easy to prove

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29153139]You physically cannot be nailed to a cross and stay there for any length of times. The nails would rip through your hands in no time.[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia][B]Crucifixion[/B] is an ancient method of painful execution in which the condemned person is tied and then nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang, or burned, until dead.[/quote] They also tied them to the cross. Also, it depends. They also were nailed through the feet to the cross. Also, you should take into consideration that back then, McDonalds didn't exist, so they probably didn't weigh nearly as much as today's average person does.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29153139]You physically cannot be nailed to a cross and stay there for any length of times. The nails would rip through your hands in no time.[/QUOTE] That's why, in case they were nailing them - they also were tied to the cross. Also there were often some sorts of "standing" bumps, on which they could lean their legs on. That's why the Romans sometimes broke the legs of those who were crucified, so they will die faster (the arms are put in such angle the lungs can't operate properly unless the whole body is supported, otherwise, causing deaths) [quote]They also tied them to the cross. Also, it depends. They also were nailed through the feet to the cross. Also, you should take into consideration that back then, McDonalds didn't exist, so they probably didn't weigh nearly as much as today's average person does.[/quote] Weight doesn't matter. At any rate, it isn't very specific in some texts discussing Roman crucifixion where were the nails nailed to. To the hands? To an other part of the arm? If it was to an other part of the arm, I think that crucifying without tying them was possible.

[QUOTE=Strongbad;29153235]They also tied them to the cross. Also, it depends. They also were nailed through the feet to the cross. Also, you should take into consideration that back then, McDonalds didn't exist, so they probably didn't weigh nearly as much as today's average person does.[/QUOTE] It really doesn't matter if you were 120 lbs, if you were nailed to a cross by your hands and feet, the weight of your body over a few hours to days would tear your limbs through the nails. You'd have to be tied to the cross as well, surprising they don't mention that in the bible

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29153275]It really doesn't matter if you were 120 lbs, if you were nailed to a cross by your hands and feet, the weight of your body over a few hours to days would tear your limbs through the nails. You'd have to be tied to the cross as well, surprising they don't mention that in the bible[/QUOTE] It makes sense, but according to the bible, Jesus died within a day. In any case, they tied him regardless of nailing, meaning the nails stayed in causing pain til he died. [quote]According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from the third hour, at approximately 9 am,[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#cite_note-3"][/URL] until his death at the ninth hour, corresponding to about 3 pm.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Strongbad;29153549]It makes sense, but according to the bible, Jesus died within a day. In any case, they tied him regardless of nailing, meaning the nails stayed in causing pain til he died.[/QUOTE] Actually, it is possible Jesus (if he indeed existed and was crucified) has died of many things: -Asphyxia -Shock -Coagulation (because of the people being crucified are at a near static position, resulting in very likeliness of clots forming in the blood vessels of the legs) -Dehydration -Exhaustion And other tons of reasons.

I've got some hair from from the Prophet Muhammad's beard in my attic, blessed be His name. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Uh-huh;29153979]Actually, it is possible Jesus (if he indeed existed and was crucified) has died of many things: -Asphyxia -Shock -Coagulation (because of the people being crucified are at a near static position, resulting in very likeliness of clots forming in the blood vessels of the legs) -Dehydration -Exhaustion And other tons of reasons.[/QUOTE] Then there's the issue that he was supposedly speared in the side. Come to think of it, I've got an old spear tip up in my attic, too. Must be part of the Spear of Destiny. And an old ivory Egyptian scarab beetle I bought from an antiques dealer in Naples...

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;29156019]I've got some hair from from the Prophet Muhammad's beard in my attic, blessed be His name. [editline]13th April 2011[/editline] Then there's the issue that he was supposedly speared in the side. Come to think of it, I've got an old spear tip up in my attic, too. Must be part of the Spear of Destiny. And an old ivory Egyptian scarab beetle I bought from an antiques dealer in Naples...[/QUOTE] Nonsense. Hitler acquired that spear in the forties, which made him invincible.

We have writings from non-Christians that a guy named Jesus from (whatever the city was called) is doing shit in the nearby area. We know there was a Jesus, and we know he was crucified. The real question is, is he really the son of a god and did he really do all those miracles.

[QUOTE=TBleader;29157896]We have writings from non-Christians that a guy named Jesus from (whatever the city was called) is doing shit in the nearby area. We know there was a Jesus, and we know he was crucified. The real question is, is he really the son of a god and did he really do all those miracles.[/QUOTE] you are dumb

[QUOTE=TBleader;29157896]We have writings from non-Christians that a guy named Jesus from (whatever the city was called) is doing shit in the nearby area. We know there was a Jesus, and we know he was crucified. The real question is, is he really the son of a god and did he really do all those miracles.[/QUOTE] i don't have time to prove my claims, just assume im right damnit garry, im a poster, not a fact determiner

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29136959]again, all conjecture. Can you even prove there was a Jesus nailed to a cross?[/QUOTE] Highly possible that a man was crucified, who is known as "the Jesus", who died for his "stupid" beliefs like "thou shalt not kill, steal, rape" or whatever he said to those people who got so pissed they nailed him into a cross. So you'll realize it was probably just a murder, and that things hasn't really changed since then, and we've babbled over nothing basically, in religiousness and all.

[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] Yes it may have been mentioned by historians in that time, but they had only learned of the story from other people who had in turn learned it from whatever the state the bible was in at that time. Not very reliable unless we have an eye witness account.

Oh boy here we go.