Image of Jesus' crucifixion may be wrong, says study

PARIS (AFP) - The image of the crucifixion, one of the most powerful emblems of Christianity, may be quite erroneous, according to a study which says there is no evidence to prove Jesus was crucified in this manner.

Around the world, in churches, on the walls of Christian homes, on crucifixes worn as pendants, in innumerable books, paintings and movies, Jesus Christ is seen nailed to the cross by his hands and feet, with his head upwards and arms outstretched.

But a paper published by Britain's prestigious Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) says this image has never been substantiated in fact.

Christ could have been crucified in any one of many ways, all of which would have affected the causes of his death, it says.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060330/sc_afp/sciencereligion_060329234231

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."

It's just true (if the Jesus story is)

That's what I've thought about the crucifix and The Passion of the Christ movie. (I didn't see it because I knew how it would end) If I were Jesus I'd be thinking "I preached to and healed many. I taught love and forgiveness, had some great parables. There were miracles. And you make this about the worst few hours in my life and glorify that? Sure I died on the cross but so did a lot of other people and they suffered even more and took longer to die. Didn't like it but who does. But HELLO I ROSE FROM THE DEAD!

So I suffered for a few hours. Is the story of a mother's love for her child told by showing her hours of labor?

Oy vay. If you want to show you love me give the movie money to the poor or take your kids out for ice cream and talk. Love one another. Skip the movie. Enough blood and gore!"

Of course I am not Jesus but I assume he was a lot wiser and spiritual then I am and would pretty much say that only a lot better.

were he suspended like that, leaving him with his head on the ground and his feet in the air. Most of them were tied and died of suffocation. The nails may have been in addition to ropes, but they had to have some other support to keep him up there.

This has been known for ages.

Christ was nailed through the wrists.

Rope or no rope. Hands or wrists. Simple pole or cross. One cross-beam or two.

People die over this shit.

It's like the Mohamed cartoon to them.

I follow The Sandal!

He left his shoe that we might wear of it!

I suspect that they didn't hold back on the nails, in any event.

over one of the bones because the problem with the hands would have been repeated with the wrists. The nails would simply have pulled through.

I recall that Thomas had to see the hands. Of course, there are so many translations ....

:hide:

sigh.....

Here, in Luke, Jesus offers his hands as proof (without being asked by Thomas.)

Luke 24:38 (RSV)

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

However, as it turns out, if you look for the use of the word "wrist" or "wrists" in the Bible, you won't find it (unless by context, the word usually translated as "hands" has been translated as "wrists.")

Acts 12:6-7 (RSV)

6 The very night when Herod was about to bring him out, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison; 7 and behold, an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, "Get up quickly." And the chains fell off his hands.

In some newer translations you'll read that the chains fell off Peter's wrists, but the same Greek word "ceir" is being used in both Luke 24:38 and Acts 12:7. (My understanding is that there was no differentiation between wrist and hand.)

riiiiiight...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But of course no one can prove the miracle stories, the resurrection in particular.

Jesus died about 30 CE. The earliest writings in the New Testament are those of Paul, who gives little information about the life of Jesus but who does claim that many saw Jesus after his death. (See his first letter to the Corinthians, which mainstream secular scholarship dates to before 60 CE.) We know from his writings and also the book of Acts (written by 120 CE) that Paul was converted to Christianity about 10 years after the death of Jesus. From this we conclude that the belief in the resurrection appeared very early in the Church, and was not a later mythological addition as commonly assumed by skeptics and atheists.

But in the modern world, it is not at all unusual for people to report seeing apparitions of loved ones after their death. It is difficult to assign any objective reality to such apparitions, but they are very common. I have no trouble believing that Jesus was a real human being, who taught his followers various things, who somehow provoked the Roman authorities into killing him, and whose followers became convinced he survived his crucifixion in some sort of spiritual manner.

The mystical aspects of religion are up for debate...but from a purely historical perspective...Jesus was man who lived on earth and died on earth - seems a fact.

How he became such a big star is a mystery.

Unfortunately conventional religion is hung up on miracles and magic - but if you look past all that - Jesus was teaching some pretty cool stuff...

There is a germ of truth to every myth - dont overlook or dismiss it.

I agree with that much.

But I don't think he ever existed. All the stories about him are just made up out of whole cloth. Or adapted from other myths, which were made up out of whole cloth.

and "is a fact" are different things. Find one extra-biblical, historical document or contemporary account of the life of your Jesus...they don't exist. The earliest dates for any gospel is 400CE(Matthew). Ample extra-religious research fails to indicate any history to an actual Jesus of Nazareth. Recently, a priest in Italy was ordered to provide "evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ"...we are still waiting. Pity is for fools, and I won't even muster any for those who claim to believe in a historical Jesus. Myths are for non-empiricists, so not for me. Pre-christian/humanist thought is the origin of most of what gets ascribed to the Christ figure.

All decent scholars hold that John was the last canonical gospel written, at about 90-100 CE. Matthew was probably written between 80-100 CE. No reputable scholar places Matthew later than 100 CE.

While I agree with the statement attributed to Napoleon 'religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich' I'm not sure you have it accurate about conventional thinking.
Who are these conventional thinkers? It seems to me history has been able to determine someone existed at that time who resembles Jesus.
Jesus didn't preach religion, He preached spirituality.
Sounds like maybe you could use a little of that.......... :shrug:

Acharya S. She is excellent in providing bibliographies and sources for the arguments. many of her arguments are also considered conventional. Cheers and try not to buy into fantasies too much; it's bad for the cogitative faculty. Spirituality? I go for reality, as it is actually experienced in physics.
Jesus didn't preach, because he is a mythic being based on certain astrological and astronomic qualities and metaphorical.

The writing of this person cannot be considered conventional, she doesn't even have any academic credibility, nor any type of experience to prove she is the expeert she claims to be........

She has degrees in numerous fields including linguistics and religious history.

My readings of comparative religion, myth, legend & psychology have convinced me that there could have been a "real" Jesus.

Of course, his story was definitely conflated with those of heroes of the mystery religions so common in the Roman Empire. This is NOT new thinking. Ever hear of Joseph Campbell?

a conglomeration of some facts (limited)and fantasy, heavy on theory and extra intense on dogma.

Right thru those two bones, right about where your pulse is - unless, of course you are Dick Cheney, then you won't actually find a pulse.

after a stuffed shirt of a priest told a class of girls that we should be glad to die in childbirth because the baby might be a boy and that the only place for women in the church was in cleaning it.

Excommunication at this point would be redundant.

all this time

(snarky )

B-)

I think he said that.

It certainly is coincidential that this story would come out right when Rove and his minions are ramping up the FAKE "War on Xtianity" outrage...

I smell a set-up.

J

I don't think it has anything to do with the "war" on Christianity.

goodwill towards other....typical...

So I had a friend when I was in college in Kansas who got married to his college sweetie (they're still married 10 years later). He's an atheist, and she's a lapsed Catholic, but they got married in a Catholic church to appease her parents. The best man was gay, and he so wanted to say this as part of the toast at the reception.

"I was a little nervous about being the best man in a Catholic wedding what with being gay and all, but then I found out that you had men hung like this (stretches out arms and lolls head to one side)."

Cooler heads prevailed though, and he didn't.

TlalocW

When they find some evidence that he actually existed, THEN they can start arguing about how he died....

:rofl:

Old old brooklyn Irish catholic joke - sorry.

Usual is "What a way to spend Easter"

Passion of the Christ Redux with Director's Cut CGI edit.

Arguing about the precise shape and number of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendages. Or whether Zeus cut his toenails straight across, and if he didn't, did the Olympian gods get hangnails?

Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is established, infallible dogma.

Wheat? Rice?

Controversial Christian Faction Believes Jesus Was Nailed To Two Parallel Pieces Of Wood
http://www.theonion.com/content/index
scroll down

http://objectiveministries.org/pastorscorner/#08-13-2003

(while you're there, take a look around the Objective Christian Ministries site - it's a good one :-)

Experiments in the 19th century showed that nails through the palms of the hands would tear out. As I read then, the Greek word commonly translated as "hands" also referred to the wrist.

"Matt old boy, we're never going to get any attention if we keep doing studies on obscure diseases."

"You're so right, Piers. We need something that will provoke the masses. Maybe something with an historical or religious overlay."

"With so little documentation that no one can prove we're right or wrong."

"Exactly! Something like 'Type II Diabetes as an Emblem of the Universal Buddha.'"

"Odd, but not provocative enough. How about diagnosing Mohammed as a manic-depressive based on passages from the Koran?"

"Erm, no. But I can think of another group we can easily rile, especially if we publish right around Easter."

"I'm listening..."


/lame Brit dialog

the cross that was used by the Romans during this period of time was in the shape of an X.....and the instrument of torture used by the soldiers was cat-o-nine-tails.....I do not wish to get into any debate about what a person believes as how Jesus died, but if one watched the Passion of the Christ the torture scene was in my estimation close to how he was beaten. Based upon history of the Roman Empire.

I bet there were a bunch of dudes named Jesus in Nazareth back then.

and to confuse things even more "Jesus" wasn't his actual name (it's a translation).

AFAIK a lot of written Hebrew didn't have vowels back then so the best approximation to his actual name
would be something like Yeshua or Joshua.

I know a bunch of guys named Jesus.

Tengo dos primos se llaman 'Jesus'. Uno vive en el Arizona y el otro en el Nuevo México, pero nunca fueran allá.

TODAY!

I live in a suburb of Las Vegas!

Some traditions in the ME maintain that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, but escaped the Romans and traveled to the east, to die later in India. Also, that his mother Mariam (Mary) died on the trip and is buried in Persia.

"Nor is there any detailed account of the method of Jesus' crucifixion in the four Gospels of the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)
which are believed to be near contemporary accounts of the life of Christ."

Near contemporary accounts? Are they kiddin me?

Yeshuva... if you believed that he lived (I, personally, am not convinced of that fact). It doesn't have a bunch of weird stuff, or Johannian propaganda, etc. It is relatively cut and dried, and leaves out the post-Resurrection story, also. So, if there is ANY true near-contemporary accounts in the NT, it is indeed in Mark. (For the record: I studied Koine Greek for several years -- ie NT Greek)

Re: crosses. The Romans were "masters" at this form of execution... and the traditional "T" cross would have been pretty tame for them. The point was making the suffering as high as possible, and the length of time to die as long and agonizing as possible. This is technically pretty old news for us religious history buffs....

So the blood would flow to the head, and they'd stay alive longer -- thus, ensuring the maximum amount of torture.

I remember reading that somewhere, but I have no idea where or the veracity of such a statement.

This would have been when Nero was looking for scapegoats after the great fire in Rome.

between about 70 and 120 CE. Jesus is believed to have died in about 30 CE.

That's hardly "near contemporaneous," is it.

To put it into persepctive - imagine that you were asked to write a history of a person who died fifty years ago (ie: 1956),
and not someone who was well known, but someone who contemporaneous writers ignored. You
were to base this history *strictly on oral remembrances* of people who lived in the 1940-50s. You can even toss
in a few tidbits of received opinion about the person. In other words, treat it like the history of Jesus - which is entirely an oral history.

Just how accurate do you think your story would be?

The 'oral remembrances' are those of a small community of people, who were the followers of those who originally followed Jesus. Things got garbled. E.g., the timing of the crucifixion differs from Gospel to Gospel. John says Jesus's public ministry lasted three years, the other three Gospels say it was one year. Some legendary or mythological material entered the oral traditions and ended up in the Gospels (the two very different Nativity stories, in Matthew and Luke, are a good example). And some of the Gospels appear to have material that is fictional or pointed (the miracle of Jesus walking on water, or the miracle of his changing water to wine). Modern scholars who have tried to sort out what is true from what is legend or myth have found that the Gospels are extremely difficult to sift; there are endless theories as to who Jesus really was and what he really taught. The best guess: Jesus was an itinerant rabbi who taught that the religious authorities were hypocrites, and that everyone had direct access to God through prayer. Apparently, he staged a dramatic demonstration in the Temple grounds of overturning money-changers' tables. This apparently led to the authorities finding him a threat, and he was soon crucified.

A more interesting point: The Gospels are not contemporaneous. But a large section of the New Testament consists of the letters of Paul. There are 12 of these. Five of them are accepted by secular scholarship as genuine (two more, possibly; five definitely not). In these letters, including the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul clearly believes in the resurrection. 1 Corinthians was written in the late 50s -- within living memory of the life of Jesus; Paul gives a direct statement as to who saw the risen Jesus in chapter 15 of that letter. Paul in fact mentions some of these witnesses as still being alive. To Paul in 58 CE, the end of Jesus's life was more recent than the resignation of Richard Nixon is to us.

Now Paul did not know or meet Jesus; his letters contain little information about the life of Jesus. But Paul was in contact with the original disciples (apostles) of Jesus. Paul met with the other apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, to hash out a serious theological issue (did Gentiles have to become circumcised or otherwise follow Jewish law, when they became Christian). The Council was in about 50 CE. So it is clear to me that Paul's teachings reflected what the early Church taught, in the first two or three decades after the death of Jesus. Central to these teachings is the doctrine that Jesus appeared to his followers after his death. (Of course, we cannot determine if there is any objective reality to this; as I suggested in my post #47, apparitions or visions are not unusual even today.)

www.jesusneverexisted.com

and all the "eye witnesses" are long gone..

Quick Call CSI-Jerusalem

more spinoffs!

Remind me again, is it more or less heretic to claim Jesus was brown skinned than to draw cartoons of the Prophet? I never can keep which religion wants to kill me straight.

until the Shroud of Turin was discovered.

Since then Jesus face has become pretty standard and it's the face from the Shroud that artists have copied.

Glad I left LONG ago.

I've got more important thingst to do with my life - like sleep in on Sundays after working OT all week!

This is HUGH!!!!!!!111 :sarcasm:

I think there is a very good possibility that the image is wrong and was written that way to add effect to the text. Although the Fundies can't seem to grasp it, the Bible was not meant to be a historical work of any kind. It's philosophy, mythologie, it's a lot of things but it's not history.

over the ages ? Counting one of the most religious (You better be. Or else!) times in history.

edit:

Fear and pain are two of the best motivators there are. To me, religion is just a way to control the masses. Whatever works is the way it was written. That being said, I do believe it tries to help people live good, kind lives.


But DAMN, that is one violent book.

I think the part about Jesus's life and teachings is quite inspiring, vouching for love and tolerance, but I don't think the Fundies read the same Bible as I do, because, damn.

Really, does it ?

ahh the irony.

At least 20 years ago there were articles in major news magazines and newspapers about crucifixion having taken place in a different way from what's depicted in art. I'd say a fair number of people have long been aware of that.

The spike in wrists is what I've heard in church for at least twenty years now.

I didn't see the Passion of the Christ. How did they portray it? hands or wrists?

The Shroud of Turin shows wrists.

at the Last Supper. It really trivializes the entire subject.

Most of them photo's of Jesus I've seen, he looks like he is white man. Jesus was Jew, which mean, he had dark skin and dark hair.

On the other hand, other recent artwork has depicted Jesus as an Apache, a Navajo, Ethiopian elder, A Black woman, etc.

Europeans depicted Jesus as looking like them. OK, as far as that went. European art was not into "historical accuracy" for a long time.

But then they exported "their" Jesus to other peoples. Now, the others are getting into the act.



www.mc.maricopa.edu/~ladelia/INTREL243/CH%209%20Christianity/Images_of_Jesus.htm

they want to believe. I might want to believe that Jesus was nailed upside down and by god I'm not going to listen to anything else!

:D

And wouldn't the chastity belts get in the way? :evilgrin:

Many fundamentalist churches don't even display a crucifix but rather a cross. In my experience, those who are interested in the Passion are very interested in historical information about Jesus and would find this information fascinating.

Hey, for the sake of this particular fantasy, let's even suppose Marty McFly goes back in time to the crucifixion with his camera and takes a couple of really good color photos of the blessed event. We now know exactly what the cross was, what Jesus himself and all his grieving relatives looked like, and exactly where the nails went.

WHAT THE FUCK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

It's not like all those churches that have invested millions into their gigantic three-story crosses and golden crucifix ornaments and cross-stamped bibles and portraits of blond-haired blue-eyed saviors are just going to throw it all away and replace it with the "historically accurate" version instead. The crucifixion has become far larger than the event to which it originally referred. To dispute the shape of the cross even now is to totally miss the whole point of religion. It's like having an argument over whether his middle initial was really "H".

that's a good enough reason for me to want to keep it.

the data they learned as babies is correct!!!!

Well that's one crucifix we'll never see. Ouch.

And I say that as a Catholic.

...that's why there were no marks on the wrist bones. Or so I was taught in Catholic school. I don't know what the consensus view of historians is about this may be.

Peter, did you know I can see your house from up here?!