Soo

Proving that he died on a stake is important for disrupting Christian continuity and symbology.

Why a tool of torture and execution became the symbol of Christianity in the first place?

Christian """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""thinkers"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" tend to

Romans executed him as a lowly criminal.
Romans hung people onto white crosses for that.
Case closed!

Because it's a sign of Christ's suffering which is kind of meaningful to Christianity. Herp a derp da derp derp

The Jehovah's witnesses, who were started by some literally who street preacher at the turn of the century who was autistically obsessed with the King James Bible. Needless to say their interpretation of Christianity is a bit... Unsophisticated compared to that of legitimate churches such as Roman Catholicism. They think that if you believe Jesus died on a cross, you will not be in paradise.

Except the shroud of turin dates to over a millennium after Jesus was crucified

it's not consistent with medieval understanding of Roman crucifixion, that is enough to throw any carbon dating done out of the window.

Hmmm

Prove it

find me one medieval of the crucifixion where the nails are hammered into Jesus' wrists and anklebones instead of hands and feet.

*medieval depiction

>tfw now you have to remove the crossbar off all your religious symbols and all of Christendom is represented by a simple telephone pole

The Shroud of Turin was dated to the 13th century. Total fake.

The shroud of Turin, if fabricated, would have been fabricated by an intellectual, or more likely a small team of intellectuals, with an understanding of and access to a photosensitive chemical like silver nitrate (Which Albertus Magnus knew how to make), optic, lenses, some basic chemistry, and maybe a few cadavers to play around with.

I know that sounds like a lot of preconditions, and a bit unbelievable. But the art conventions of a given period do not reflect the scientific knowledge of a given period. Look at movies. Their representation of science is usually totally inaccurate fantastical child's play.

Likewise, artists getting the wrist thing wrong is little evidence that the shroud of turin is actually a burned image of Yeshua coming back to life with a burst of light like in Beauty and the Beast.

youtube.com/watch?v=eM3j3S465oo&t=0m40s

(why would it happen that way anyway? Why wouldn't Yeshua just sit back up? Why would there be an arbitrary burst of light that leaves a photographic imprint? If it's YHWH trying to leave evidence of INRI, then why pick such an subtle and debatable and way of communicating a message? Leave just enough evidence that you still need faith, but not enough evidence that it's indisputable? Frustrating, to say the least.

I find it more likely, whether you're a believer or not, that the Shroud is a sophisticated medieval hoax. I know, I know, pollen and all that... but one has to keep in mind that the shroud was purely in the hands of people interested in proving its veracity until late last century.

Not to mention the strong tradition of fake biblical artifacts meant to encourage pilgrimage.

How can whites even compete

It's impossible to know, since the word used in greek is ambiguous. He could have even been crucified on a tree for all we know. But it still kind of suspicious that the Jehova's Witnesses were the first to claim it was a stake; even the earliest depictions we have crucifixtion relating to Jesus depict a cross. If people knew otherwise, would have taken people longer than 1900 years to claim it was really a stake, and JWs probably did it as a move to distinguish themselves in representation.

>A lot of people calling themseves "the savior" tried their best to get crucified at the time to fulfill a prophecy.
You're going to need to provide some evidence of that.

Lots of apocalyptic preachers and messianic figures were running around during that time, but it doesn't seem like any of them were actively trying to get killed. And it wouldn't make sense if they did, because Jewish understanding of what a messiah was involved them being a triumphant king-like figure in this realm. Christians faced a pretty big stumbling block when trying to convince people that Jesus could be dead and still the messiah.

Not him, but they exist. I've seen some. I just tried looking for example quickly, but it's a weird thing to search for. I know my word isn't much to go on, but that's also not a very strong argument. In every other way, the image on the shroud looks like a medieval-era depiction of Jesus. Some people have even argued that the shroud shows woulds through the palm.

shroudstory.com/2015/02/25/maybe-the-nails-didnt-go-through-the-wrists/

And as far as how the image was made is concerned, it's hard to tell exactly if the image is special since there's so much bullshit about the shroud on the internet. It's very, very hard to find a source discussing it that isn't incredibly biased or misleading. But for every claim people make that apparently proves that shroud has to be real, if you dig enough, you can find some other explanation for it. Some people have even been able to make convincing replicas with medieval techniques.

It's worth noting that its carbon matches pretty much exactly the first mention of it in history (and the medieval relic craze). And this mention is a letter from a bishop to the pope saying that it was a hoax and he knew who the forger was.

>Jewish understanding of what a messiah was involved them being a triumphant king-like figure in this realm

There's a great section about this "warrior messiah" idea in Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches

monoskop.org/images/5/5b/Harris_Marvin_Cows_Pigs_Wars_and_Witches_The_Riddles_of_Culture_1974.pdf

was meant to be a reply to

y yung jeezy shaved tho

Since we're expanding on that point, I might as well mention that before Jesus, there was a figure called Simon of Perea that led a rebellion and gathered followers who thought he was the messiah. When he was killed, some of his followers apparently thought he was still the messiah (at least for a while), which shows some precedence for acceptance of the idea of a dead messiah, but it wasn't common. And the reason people thought he was the messiah in the first place is because he had been leading a relatively successful rebellion; he wasn't trying to be killed at all, and it's unusual that people still thought of him that way after his death. Most other messianic claimants were abandoned by their followers after death, (Simon bar Kochba probably being the most obvious example), because the messiah wasn't supposed to be dead.

kek

That's because they deliberately took a piece that was already well known to have come from the middle ages in order to maintain the cloth, so that they could attempt to discredit Christianity.

ok u rite jeshua resurrectid after puntus piloot kilt him and when he resurrectid da lite came out him like fwoosh fwoosh fwoosh and burned an anatomically accurate image of a medival pesint ondo da gloth

:3 :3

Paul says he died on a cross, whether that was on Earth or in the lower Heavens remains to be seen

he was run over by a Stralis

Prove the dying messiah wasn't expected in 1st century Jerusalem. They even expected him to resurrect because Paul names the scriptures as a source for the resurrection of Jesus, nothing else.

>prove a negative

No

He has to prove it to support his claim otherwise he's just talking out of his ass

Sorry scripture AND revelation

he died on a complicated shape

Compete in what sense?

>literally the first drawing of Jesus was crucified on a cross
>simple popular opinion

...

According to Biblical doctrine, he died on a cross.

In alignment with reality, the nigga probably didn't exist.

And I swear to god if any of you bring up Tacitus or Josephus, you are shitty advocates for historical literacy. Otherwise you'd know that those were forgeries or information taken from the Gospels.

>Jesus probably didn't exist

Opinion fucking discarded

How in the world are people this delusional? I swear you must be legitimately retarded to believe this

Attached to a steak that is shaped like a cross to hold his hands with the nails in him to pin him to it.

No, you're right.

I am the retard for pointing out that practically every other religion is fine with having mythical founders (including da Jooz). But if you point out the same might also apply to Jesus, no, that's gosh darn impossible.

Why? Is he mentioned outside of propaganda pieces?

The Greek word for cross is "Stauros."

It literally means "a wooden frame/piece of lumber that stands upright" which could be fucking anything.

Anyway there was no such thing as a standard roman crucifix. Or crucifixion procedures for that matter. The common denominator is to hang a live cunt on a stick that was pretty much it.

That cunt couldve drawn it based on a crucifix he saw. But far from the actual cross of jesus. Whatever he was fucking hung too.

at least they gave this donkeyman a nice footrest

That's because their entire religion is based around God becoming a human and dying a human death. If he didn't physically die on the cross then the whole thing is thrown out the window, or you end up with variants like Gnosticism.
It makes sense why they would defend that notion no matter what.

So, did the roman soldier feed him Posca on a sponge, or did the chroniclers not wish to write they smeared his upper lip with Roman ass wiping material?

THEY SHOT MAH NIGGUH YEEZY

The Epistle of Barnabas mentions a Tau shape and all other Christian writings and Church fathers describe a T shape as well.
The revisions of the stake as a single beam didn't appear until the 16th century.
It's possible that other shapes existed for the stake but the T shape is the one associated with Yeshua since the earliest times.
The Staurogram on the oldest New Testament papyri (here's something that you can be grateful to the Alexandrian text for KJOers) pretty much confirms this.

>implying jesus died on either
>not knowing he just went back to japan
youtube.com/watch?v=1Lt6DEnFYuA

>Instead of looking at the premiere mythicist argument and rebutting it properly, this is what historicists do

Posts like these should be a bannable offense.

What would you consider to be the premier mysticist argument?

As far as I can tell, it's Richard Carrier, and he's not entirely convincing. He does a good job of presenting his case, and raises some good points about why it can be argued that Jesus didn't exist, but doesn't do much except present a good case for the possibility. A big problem comes with how he relies on his own interpretations that seem to be kind of reaching (like insisting that Paul meant Jesus was metaphorically born of a woman), which is why most scholars don't take the claims seriously. I also find issue with his lack of acknowledgement that the similarities between gentile traditions and Christian traditions could probably be more easily explained by syncretism and gentiles placing Jesus in contexts in which they were familiar.

Overall, he presents the best case that I've seen, but he doesn't convince me that Jesus didn't exist, just that converts were willing to mythicize him, which is already widely accepted. An interesting thing about Carrier is that while he usually seems dead certain about Jesus being a myth, when discussing the issue with actual historians (not Christian apologists or at lectures), he comes across much less certain about his conclusions; for example, in a debate I recently listened to between him and Mark Goodacre, he kept backpeddling when called out on how problematic some of his conclusions were, and ended up saying "all I'm doing is saying this is a possibility," more than making his usual arguments. I'm sure he knows that it's impossible to make a certain case either way.

As almost everyone EXCEPT you now realises, Jesus wasn't a real person. According to earliest Christian writers, he was 'crucified' in some spiritual realm before the Earth was even 'created'.

Which writers?

> I'm sure he knows that it's impossible to make a certain case either way.

Have you tried reading one of his books? He goes out of his way to make clear that not enough evidence has survived to be able to prove or disprove historicity.

St Paul. Perhaps you've heard of him?

Can you point to a specific verse?

>He goes out of his way to make clear that not enough evidence has survived to be able to prove or disprove historicity.
Exactly, which is why I said that.

1 Cor 2.6-10 is the usual starting point for arguments of this nature.

1 Cor 2.8:

>None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Sounds a lot like Paul thought a ruler of that age had killed Jesus.

Ok, I'll bite. So there are some truths that are mysterious and hidden. How do you get to the conclusion that one of those truths is that Jesus was crucified in s spiritual realm before the earth existed?

>Sounds a lot like Paul thought a ruler of that age had killed Jesus.

B-but "rulers of this age" refers to Satan and his minions. It's not obvious from the English translation, but the original is Greek . 'archon' is a supernatural being of some kind.

Typo edit:

It's not obvious from the English translation, but it is obvious in the original Greek...

>Archon (Gr. άρχων, pl. άρχοντες) is a Greek word that means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office.

That's an earlier definition, dude. In the first century it meant a supernatural being.

Greek vocab was not set in stone for all eternity, just like Shakespeare's texts contain many words whose meanings have since changed.

>That's an earlier definition
that was still in use throughout pretty much all antiquity
>In the first century it meant a supernatural being.
in some niche gnostic groups, maybe
still, probably not in first century

Maybe. I've never been a member of a niche gnostic group.

The important thing is that it's used this way throughout the Pauline epistles. See 1 Cor. 12.28-29, Gal 3.5, 2 Cor. 2:12.

According to Carrier, "these terms were widely used in Jewish apocrypha to refer to the demonic powers holding the sublunar world in thrall." He gives references that take up half a page (p189 of OHJ, if you want to check them).

Of course, perhaps Carrier is mistaken, or lying. But I find that doubtful. Jesus' supernatural crucifixion is a key part of the mythicist argument. If it's simply wrong, you'd expect Carrier's enemies to be lining up around the block to show that he's wrong. Instead, they are strangely silent.

The most important thing is he said 'of this age' in which Paul calls Satan the 'god of this age'

Paul is not specific on whether he means demons (archons a common name for demons in antiquity) or Romans/Jews but it's less likely he would describe the Romans/Jews as the rulers of this age because who said they wouldn't have killed Jesus if it meant they would save mankind from sin or they didn't believe the story. Why would 'the truth' of who Jesus was have to be hidden from Romans/Jews?

It could be argued that the first Christian sect was Gnostic since Paul only says visions and scripture are his sources for knowing Jesus. What's more likely under the circumstances, Paul had a vision of the risen Jesus of historicized fashion without having to argue with any historicist sects in his writings that we see or that he had vision of a celestial Jesus that got crucified in the Heavenly realm of whom there are Earthly copies of everything.

Nice digits, but don't get cross with me

Ha ha, no.

I wish we burned the entire thing, that way there would be no fucking questions

The fact is that any of those not withstanding the consensus is that the dating was correct and until you provide a test sample with an older date there is no reason to think it is anything other than a clever forgery

>saving your own posts

So Ælian, how's your Æutism treating you?

>Burning anything that have historic value
Mongol pls go
>Not reading thing before dismissing it
Kto?

i couldn't even understand anything from that pic

is user just trying to mental-gymnastic his around the radiocarbon dating?

>not an argument
As insufferable as my wording might have been for you to read, you have to admit the idea of an anatomically accurate image of a human being being burned onto cloth as a natural consequence of a supernatural resurrection so God could leave archeological evidence that he impregnated a virgin with himself so he could arbitrarily save the world he created with his own sacrifice...

is superfluous and silly and not likely a true explanation of the artifact's origin.

But sure, you don't like my tone or my style, so I ought to be banned.

I mean, fuck, you could've at least said something substantive after rebuking my tone.

I KNEW IT
I KNEW that fucking annoying shitposting papist on /christian/ was Ælian

cross.
You'd suffocate pretty fast from being tied to a stake(you need rope on the horizontally placed arms to prevent that from happening even on a regular cross)

But Jebus isnt in2real brah

The anatomical accuracy is because a tortured man was wrapped in a linen cloth after torture and crucifixion, and then slow-exposure photographed with a camera obscura and a lens and silver nitrate while hanging from a hook. This was done by scholars and academics and clergymen in a dungeon somewhere. They probably used some condemned man with a look like Jesus.

I know this sounds unlikely to you, and you think it more likely a man named Yeshua came back to life in a cave 2000 years ago in a burst of heavenly light that burned his image onto linen.

They tortured a random guy as though he really were Jesus just to fabricate an artifact of his resurrection for people to worship. Such was the length the medieval church was willing to go through to have worshipers supplementing their economy through expensive pilgrimage.

There is an economic motive.
There is a religious motive.
There are available tools.
There is precedence that educated scholars (not artists who are masters of public opinion and convention) would've known the anatomical nature of crucifixion.
There are similar artifacts from the same time period. Cross shards. Ark Shards. Lances of Longinus. Bones of James.

The truth is pilgrimage was a tourist industry, and The Shroud of Turin is medieval Disney World.

Pic related. It's Nicholas Allen's shroud. he made it using methods that would have been available in the 1300s.

Your post is refuted in the image you replied to

10/10

It wasn't refuted, he simply stated there isn't any evidence that the process existed, which is incorrect.

you guys forget one key thing: that the anatomy on the shroud is incorrect and therefore not for a real human being.

in other words, it's fabricated because the anatomy is wrong. ya dense fucks

I suggest you to re-read it then, since you seems to ignore part about what would middle aged forger do, with his limited technology and knowledge to forge shroud for example know where nails were puted or to use pollens and dirt from palestine while being completely anonymous and having virtually no gains from it. Not to mention that I don't think that in XIV century it would be easy to have a copy of coin to put on the eye of man on the shroud (it's a rare coin too, we have only two copies of them in some british museum) to match Jewish burial ritual or to paint in a way, that only UV light can reveal that.

Also, Allen is overturned in pic, for a) not creating copy that have all properties of shroud and b) for false assumption that if you one have raw materials he must use them in way know to someone who live many centuries after him.
>that the anatomy on the shroud is incorrect
And by this you mean...?

>And by this you mean...?
head is bigger than it should be
Arms and legs are longer than they should be

>And by this you mean...?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Anatomical_forensics

infidels.org/kiosk/article/the-shroud-of-turin-the-great-gothic-art-fraud-because-if-its-real-the-brain-of-jesus-was-the-size-of-a-protohumans-815.html

>Delage declared the image anatomically flawless
>Barbet stated that his experience as a battlefield surgeon during World War I led him to conclude that the image on the shroud was authentic, anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion
>Bucklin concluded that the image was of a real person, subject to crucifixion
>Zugibe considered the shroud image and its proportions as authentic
>In 2001, Pierluigi Baima Bollone, a professor of forensic medicine in Turin, stated that the forensic examination of the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud indicate that the image was that of the dead body of a man who was whipped, wounded around the head by a pointed instrument and nailed at the extremities before dying
>2010 Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical measurements, wrote that "apart from the hands afterward placed on the pubic area, the front and back images are compatible with the Shroud being used to wrap the body of a man 175 ± 2 cm (5 ft 9 in ± 1 in) tall, which, due to cadaveric rigidity, remained in the same position it would have assumed during crucifixion"
>A 2013 study analysed the wounds seemingly evident on the image in the shroud and compared them favorably to the wounds which the gospels state were inflicted on Jesus

And only two people mentioned to disagree are artists and paleontologist not specializes in human anatomy who is known for his criticism of religion (rather childish I would say)

Plus
>infidels.org
>Source

was jesus half horse?

No. Died living with a Hebrew sect. Would you lie to the Roman authority? Someone did.

Crucification refers to burning as in a crucible.

This is basically the lowest form of argumentation. You spam information and expect your opponent to refute it all (which would basically be conceding the argument by default) or to concede the argument by not refuting it. The fact is that the only conclusive dating experiment ever performed on the shroud has dated it to the 13th century, and until another such experiment is performed that is the only piece of evidence that matters. Any other details such as anatomical authenticity or any other corroborating details are basically appeals to ignorance that imply on trying to posit that someone in the market of making a fake relic wouldn't have the skill to produce a convincing fake.