Scholars: Crucifixion Portrayal Inaccurate

AP News ^ | Feb 19th,2004 | PETER ENAV

[CWW]

No proof that Juesus was nailed to the cross? Other than 4 eyewitness accounts and the Shroud of Turin.

But those little fact kinda get in the way of the story!

[macrahanish #1]

Ther might be a Gideon Bible there, if some liberal didn't remove it because:
- it violated his constitutional right to not be offended.
- it contains hate speech;he must protect the unwashed
masses from such things.

[Cultural Jihad]

By reading these scholars, you'd think the shape of the cross is the pivotal central point of Christianity. Makes one wonder if Mel Gibson faithfully recreated the shapes of the clouds on that day, too.

[Ann Archy]

Do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are written history??

[WVNan]

All who have "seen" across the veil of time and space know what you experienced. No need to tell of it.

[nmh]

Splitting hairs ... .

[Modernman]

Do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are written history??

I'm actually not familiar with them. Are they?

I was assuming that you were trying to give an example of historical evidence that supports events in the Bible.

[Ann Archy]

Yes...do a google...you'll be shocked..I am shocked that you've never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[WVNan]

Help us out here. Can you give a historical reference which does not support the events in the Bible?

[aruanan]

Zias said the question of whether Jesus was nailed to the cross or simply tied to it remains a mystery. "There is no evidence whatsoever he was nailed," he said. "The Gospels say he was crucified and leave it at that."

I would like to know how these supposed experts could make such blatant errors: A. That Jesus was said to have gone out to Golgotha carrying the cross (whether the cross piece or the entire thing) according to the book of John is not negated by the account of the other gospels saying that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry it very shortly after Jesus was led out to be crucified. B. Although we may not know what any standard practice was about how the condemned were affixed to the cross, we do know in particular and specific detail in the case of Jesus:

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. John 20:19&20

But he [Thomas] said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."--John 20:25

He [Jesus] said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.--Luke 24:38-40

This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.--Acts 2:23

having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.--Colossians 2:14

Zias, though, was probably correct about the nails not having been placed through the palms of the hand. In Greek, the word kairos, hand, refers to everything including the wrist on down.

[Modernman]

Yes...do a google...you'll be shocked..I am shocked that you've never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I've heard of them, I just wasn't familiar as to whether their content was religious or secular.

[Modernman]

Help us out here. Can you give a historical reference which does not support the events in the Bible?

Not off the top of my head. I was making the bigger point that to prove that the contents of the Bible are true, logic requires some independent, non-Biblical source.

[Dead Dog]

I don't think they tied many to the cross. What would people fear..rope burns? The History channel did a pretty interesting story on it, part of their Spartacus "documentary", they used standardized nails, washers, and a healthy solder would last 100-130 hours on the cross.

[Zack Nguyen]

Actually, the Bible says very clearly that Christ was nailed into the Cross.

John 20:25 - "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands..." (Thomas speaking.)

Also consider Acts 2:23 - "...you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

[WVNan]

The scholars of archaeology will tell you that every discovery that has been made in the ME relating to the Biblical periods have confirmed, not refuted, the historical accuracy of the Bible.

[WVNan]

I've always liked the eye-witness report.

"We declare to you what was from the beginning. What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands...." (I John 1:1)

Would John lie to us?

[Tennessee_Bob]

...and the significance of this criticism is?

Read between the lines - it was Bush's fault.

[Timm]

Suppose Gibson had had Jesus preside over a gay wedding, and then criticize the recent war in Iraq. Do you think AP would think it worth running full length articles discussing the "inaccuracies" of the film then?

The willingness to pile on Gibson, and carry water for the ADL's complaints, come from a barely-concealed hostility toward Christianity. It p*sses me off-- and I'm not religious at all, not a Christian.

The violence of this movie has me thinking I'll choose my spots. I'll go when I'm up for enduring that. Even if I didn't go, though, I would buy a ticket on principle.

[applemac_g4]

"John Dominic Crossan"

I was wondering when his name was going to crop up in the story. Funny how the AP unquestioningly accepts the liberal version of the story as fact and yet has to go back to the same tired old group of half a dozen radical atheist "scholars" every time they want to write a hit piece on the Almighty.

No, there's no liberal media bias.

[fire_eye]

I think it is proof of how even by Nero's time, the facts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection were already well known at Rome.

Eusebius writes that Tiberius heard of Jesus' reputation for miracles, and put Jesus' name before the Roman Senate, asking them to declare Jesus one of the Roman gods. (Miracle workers of that sort were a far more accepted phenomenon in those times than they are now.)

The Senate did not confirm Jesus.

But what if they had? Jesus would simply have become another member of the Roman pantheon... (I could go on at length with speculations, but you can paint your own alternative history...)