Wikipedia

Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion/Archive 4

< Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 4

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus has finally been reached! Good gob, folks! Page moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion (I also have no problem with Instrument of Jesus' execution, but believe it opens up the scope to wide: was he covered in pitch and set aflame? Made a gladiator? but we can only have one RfM at a time.) Please see all above discussion. This one was run up the flagpole, and it seemed like everyone saluted, at least half-heartedly. I was about to go all WP:BOLD on yo' asses and just make the move, but will put up yet another RfM instead! St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I support my proposal. We're out of WP:UCN range, but further in to WP:NPOV range.St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. I see a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel. StAnselm (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. I would still prefer Method of since that would broaden the scope to include ropes, nails, spear thrust, breaking of legs, etc. and I still don't understand why "method of X" = "X", but I won't hold things up because of that. This gets rid of "dispute" and avoids NWT neologisms, and is NPOV, if a little bland. So it's good enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Crucifixion is a method of execution. Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion is better. Instrument of Jesus' execution is even bettererer more gooderer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. Reasons already given. Esoglou (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support but prefer Instrument of Jesus' execution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
When this passes (which it seems that it most certainly will unless some new editor comes in and canvasses somewhere, as all of the regular disputants on this page have supported this), I will propose an RM to "Instrument of Jesus' execution" if it is desired. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I will probably oppose. Can we please stick for now to the proposal before us. Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A barnstar all round!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  astrum horrei - The Original Gratuitous Barnstar of RM Consensus
everybody pat their own back. Nicely conducted everyone - I take back my grumpiness at Jeffro. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Now let's get it up to good article status.. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lack of clarity ?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hi, the article really misses a clear paragraph on the present scholar debate. each shape is discussed but many are poorly sourced : primary sources or really old secondary sources, there's even direct links to google search! in the first paragraph is presented the works of vine & bullinger (and maybe the antichronological presentation of their work is not the best choice). as i understand it, i am to assume it is the predominant scholar view on the subject, which is clearly contradicted on the JW paragraph. so now i really don't know what to think. if the cross represents the actual consensus among the scholars then it should be stated first with due citing − MIRROR (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

James Penton

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it necessary to end this article with the erroneous charges made by James Penton?

Read in context, the illustration of the offender nailed to an upright stake ("crux simplex") in the Watchtower literature is to serve as a visual aid as to how this would appear, not to ascribe belief in it to Justus Lipsius or anyone else!

The omitted words in the Imperial Bible Dictionary quotations would be superflous, as the article precedes the quote with these words: "The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NWT) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece." So the Watchtower wasn't hiding the fact that later usages of "stauros" included a cross-beam! --RonMeagle (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement you quote from this Wikipedia article, the statement that does not hide the fact that later usages of the Greek word included a crossbeam, is not given in any Watchtower publication. Esoglou (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Bias

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a problem with the neutrality of this article which slants toward a Roman Catholic Bias. An example is found under the ENGLISH heading where the only Ref is a Catholic Massinal. James Strong is listed on this site with extensive refs to concordance, and the Storng's Numbers of the original Greek and Hebrew words in question here. The Ancient Greek is more closely aligned to the Hebrew and Aramaic of the period of Christs death, and the word "CROSS" in the King James Version 1611 CE and revisions in 1634 CE is not consistent with a literal interpretation of scripture which Vines and Unger note in their dictionaries. 

Consider the following FACTS about the relationship of the BIAS in the very fabrication of a T-shape Cross in opposition

to the very words of Christ himself, and the Talmud Record of charges and the events at the time of the Death of Christ. IE: Jerusalem Talmud.

I suggest the following edit be added at the appropriate places in this article that would allow for the addition of the counter point to the obvious Catholic Bias in this article: "biblical account in prophesy given by Christ himself in John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" KJV 2, lends a Messianic understanding that the T-shaped cross was a fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church to appease converts from pagan worship of Apollo and Mithra. When these texts are cross matched with Torah writings we find an understanding of the Greek "stauros" is found in the Hebrew word used in Numbers 21:7-9 "Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." KJV. In this passage the Hebrew word " נס " for "pole" is Nace, Strong's number H5251, shows the direct relationship to the Greek for Stake, σταυρός "stauros", Strong's number G4716 which leaves little room for doubt in theological terms as that the English translations of these words as "Cross" are bias translations to align with the translators doctrine and religious influences. A Pole and Stake are the same thing but the added cross beam is associated with the symbolic icon of ancient Tammuz worship. The Talmud record of charges and account given by the High Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time show from the work of restored versions of the Jerusalem Talmud the clear usage of the word "Nace" stating "Yahsha (Jesus) was hung on a pole [נס] on the eve of Passover" Jerusalem Talmud 3 31 CE. Dr Peter Williams and Dr David Instone Brewer in conjunction with Tyndale House had through computer image enhancement restored the Talmudic account previously blotted out by order of the Catholic Church in order to grant license for copyright publication of the stolen text during the captivity of the Jewish people in 70AD where these records were taken to Rome by Emperor Titus. The license was granted to Jewish publications of the Jerusalem Talmud account of the council of the High Priests after the removal of the text proving that the cross was not how Jesus was executed. In short, the combined biblical text would read "as Moses lifted up the serpent on a pole in the wilderness, even so or in the same manor Jesus would be lifted up on a pole". Messianic and Hebraic followers of the New Covenant along with apologists for a literal biblical view would contend that the writings of Eusebius of Constantine's account at the Milvian Bridge 4 having an early version without a vision of the PhiRoe or Chi-rho 5 and Cross, gave more than valid reason to pause for further research of the addition of the cross with the added beam in the shape of the letter "T". In the original account of Eusebius in 310 CE the vision of Constantine was not recorded in the official record. It was not until 325 CE at a party of the Bishops when the church of Rome first formed, that an additional account of the vision of the PhiRoe was added. The official Roman Catholic Church records show that the Cross in the present "T" shape was not voted by the cardinals as "infallible" until 1675 CE at which time the Pope was also pronounced as being the"Vicar of Christ" or the literal voice of Christ on the earth by Church doctrine. [5]

Simcha Jacobovici also known as the Naked Archaeologist recently did a documentary on the formation of modern Christianity by Constantine showing the the actual records of the vision of the Milvian bridge, and other archaeological evidence in the Arch of Constantine, proved that the modern version of doctrine contained in the Roman religion were adaptations derived from Mithra worship revealed in this History Channel expose'. [6] In this documentary account, Simcha Jacobovici shows that the Arch of Constantine still standing in Rome, has no cross or Chi-Rho on it at all. The symbols and icons on the Arch of Constantine were proven along with other archaeological evidence to be directly tied to a mixture of Mithraism and Gnositic christain doctrines which were crafted into a new form of Christianity that elevated worship of Constantine in place of Christ."

PERHAPS the neutral stand of this site should be full cause to edit this and give a section on the point counter point of this icon of religious origins that predated the modern view as that the "T" shape Cross is both Egyptian and Babylonian in Tammuz worship long prior to the Vision of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. When in fact, Eusebius original account in the Offical records showed in 310CE that NO VISION of a CROSS had ever happened, and until 325AD - CE at the command of Constantine Eusebius added the so called vision which Simcha Jacobovici uncovered in the actual records of the Roman Archives.


2. ^ The Forbidden Book, History Channel; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqarwCKiIe8&feature=youtu.be 3. ^ Encyclopedia Biblica Page 435; https://archive.org/details/Encyclopaedia_Biblica_Vol_I_to_IV 4. ^ Jerusalem Talmud Dr Peter Williams and Dr David Instone Brewer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw 5. ^ "Traditions Vs His Great Name" Eternal Light & Power company Publishing; Page 90- 95; 2014: 6. ^ THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM, WITH A HISTORY AND CRITICAL NOTES. BY PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, N. Y. IN THREE VOLUMES; SIXTH EDITION—REVISED AND ENLARGED; Copyright, 1877, by Harper & Brothers; Copyright, 1905, 1919, by David S. Schaff. 7. ^ Constantine's adoption of Christianity - Was Constantine a Christian - The Roman Empire; Published on Apr 29, 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEeZJ3DEVHQ&list=UUk84SzdaZFxoAb39dkMGELQ 8. ^ (15:6, also 2 Cor. 10:5, 2 Cor. 11:3-14, Gal. 1:6-9, 2 Tim. 3:1-8, 2 Tim. 4:2-4, 2 Peter 2:2-22, Jud. vv. 10-19.) 9. Rev. Alexander Hislop "Two Babylons"  10. "The Creed Of Constantine" by Henry M. Tichenor.

SUMMARY:

The stand of the concept of the CROSS as a T-SHAPE, was changed from the CHI-RHO of Roman Constantine from 325 AD to 1675 AD when the final T-shape was adopted by Roman Vote, not by HISTORICAL or ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence.

The two major views are a STRAIGHT STAKE and a T SHAPE CROSS. These are RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES and evidence in factual on the ground real documented evidence shows that the STAKE without a Cross beam is the most likely actual means by which Jesus died. Christ's own words refer back to the SERPENT on a POLE not a CROSS in Numbers 21, and the further research of Simcha Jacobovici and listed sources have proven that the actual account from the Jerusalem Talmud proved that it was a STAKE rather than the Cross as modern religions depict it.

A final case in point, the Talmud taken by the Roman Catholic Church in official documentation REQUIRED the blotting out of the words "HUNG ON A POLE" in the original Hebrew before they would allow the Jewish people to even publish their own talmud in 1550. This proves that the replacement of the word STAROUS with CROSS in English was based on the BIAS of Idol worship within the Catholic Church and their official doctrine. Why else would they have ERASED these words which are uncovered by Dr Peter Williams and Dr David Instone Brewer.

--Daniel Merrick PhD (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I (perhaps wrongly?) get the impression that the above is merely original research synthesis. Take its speaking of a supposed need for Jews to alter the text of the Talmud at the Pope's behest in 1550, when the Protestant Reformation was already in operation. The only RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (here I echo the capitalization in the comment above) on the matter is that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The shape of the instrument of execution is not a doctrine of Christians who, without declaring it a matter of doctrine, merely continue to depict it as having a transom, as the early Christians pictured it, and as non-Christian writers of the same period treated as the usual though not only shape of such an instrument. Esoglou (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Instrument_of_Jesus%27_crucifixion/Archive_4&oldid=1043851792"