Quoted: I see no signifigance with the alleged shroud. I personally dont think its a matter to get worked up about. I actually think its dangerous and borders on idolatry for some people.

+1

... Besides the carbon-dating evidence against its chronological authenticity, further analysis has shown that the "images" had traces of chemicals that were used in various artist's pigments of the 14th century

I am out on the Shroud, I have watched lot sof "specials" condeming it as false, and they each showed a different way it was "purportedly" made, well, they contradice each other, which is nto that surprising. But like I said, I am out on it, unless I coudl see it with my own hands, touch it, I am not going to make a decision.



As for the Grail, I am absolutely certain it is made of wood, Jesus was a Carpenter's son, he was poor, so of course the standard utensils he used would have been made primarily of wood.



I am really interested in them eventually finding the Ark of the Covenant, though I am fearing some evil Muslim in history probably destroyed it, Like joseph's Tomb

Quoted: I am really interested in them eventually finding the Ark of the Covenant, though I am fearing some evil Muslim in history probably destroyed it, Like joseph's Tomb

It was probably carried off and destroyed well before Mohammed showed up on the scene.

The shroud proves that the Gospels are true - in that what is described in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' death are proven true by the evidence on the cloth.

In that, the Gospel accounts aren't some post-hoc tale or myth concocted to scam some Greeks and Barbarians from Thor or Zeus worship, but historical truth. Like finding the bones of Geo. Washington along with his sword and papers proves he existed...

Then we have the whole sacramentality of physical things that come in contact with Jesus. They don't have INTRINSIC power from themselves, but do have relational value. A woman was cured by touching the tassel of his cloak. FACT (at least from the Gospel). Her faith, aided by his tassel, and His power, healed her.

Jesus made use of mud to cure the blind man. He used pre-existing bread and fish to multiply it to feed thousands... so obviously physical reality isn't evil for him or useless, meaningless and not conducive to his glory!

Because he walked there, the Holy Land is Holy! Because he wept over Jerusalem we still care about that city!

To say "nah, it doesn't help my faith THEREFORE it's Meaningless" is stupid and pretty arrogant.

The EMPTY TOMB was a proof for the early Christians. So was the burial cloths - they helped John to see and believe!

If the empty shroud helped St John, why poo pooh it's effect on others?

That's no small thing or "meaningless icon" as some would-be iconoclast (a heresy bTW) would have it.

I suspect the only reason Protestants dislike the Shroud is a knee-jerk anti-Catholicism, not some bible-based conclusion based on scriptural study.

Quoted: You know nothing of history. Or of Christ.

And you're an expert on history?  He knows more than you do, apparently.

Poor people had cups of WOOD!!!!!! Metal was an expensive proposition, in no way was the poor Nazarene to have the ostentation of metal. He did not even have an abode!!!!!

Which is why he used the upper room of a house belonging to someone who did have money.  Hello... it is entirely conceivable that the owner of the house furnished the utinsels used for the Passover, and it is possible that the owner had a simple metal cup.  Is the one in the picture the actual one?  Whether it is or not, it doesn't excuse your lack of reasoning.

No objects of veneration, or worship, nada zip zilch!!

I can tell you've never been to the catacombs in Rome to see where the early Christians hid during the persecution by the Roman emperors.

The meanest of Dixie cups is just as Holy as that ridiculous jeweled whores flagon that somebody "claims" is that of the passover celebrated by Christ.

Now you've gotten away from disagreeing, and you are flat out insulting and attacking.  It sounds just like junk I've read from other anti-Catholic fundamentalists.  You can't argue from Scripture, reason, history, or logic, so you resort to insults and attacks.  How sad.

Christs' ministry was to declare salvation, not how to bow or gawk at cups and statues and spears created by the hand of man, to fool his fellow man.

Sheesh!  Have no concept of what relics are or what their purpose is.  Not one person here has stated that we are required to bow or gawk at any statue or relic.  These things are provided for the faithful to see as a way of reminding us of  the Truth of Christ and his plan for us.  These things show that He really did suffer, die, and rise again, and that His grace can transform us.  If a person chooses not to see the relics, or don't see them as being beneficial to strengthening their faith in Christ, then fine.  The Church has no problem with that.  So, quit attacking your own straw man!  You prove nothing except that you like to argue.  

Those who have studied, cannot escape the Will of Christ Jesus contained in the Word. Those others of us here, seek to wallow in man's fables and conjured tales.

Those who have studied carry on better debates, discussions and arguments than you do, so I must assume that you have not studied.  You pull things randomly off topic for the sole purpose of setting up a false opponent and then debunk the "argument" as if you have actually proven something.  Like I said above:  quit attacking your own straw man.

I am done here. Dram out

Which is why you've posted how many more times in this thread?  At least do what you say you're going to do...

No, it was NOT kept.

Prove it.

There are NO scripture related to this AT ALL.

So what?  That proves nothing.  Not everything that all Christians did is recorded in the NT, or are you claiming that if something isn't written in the Bible that it didn't happen?  If that's the case, then you've got a messed up idea of history  (wait, you do have a messed up idea of history...).

We have plenty of scripture after the death of Christ, if it was needful for anything, we would KNOW IT.

No one is saying that the Shroud of Turin is needful.  Relics are not needful, however, they are able to draw a person's attention to what Christ has done in a person and thus increase a person's desire to follow Christ more closely. See above.  And the rest of this quote gets right back to the concept of sola scriptura.  You're forgetting that not everything that Jesus said and did (and the Apostles, by their own admission) was written down, yet it was passed on to us.

This is ALL middle ages hogwash concocted for the ignorant masses.

Once again:  study history!  Many of the relics have history going back waaaaay before the middle ages.  History did not start in 1400, Dram.

Smoke and mirrors, no more, no less.

And I know some here who would say the same about your arguments, and I'm not the only one.

Everything you just posted as "fact" is utter nonsense. Has no basis in fact. And if you knew ANYTHING of the period where all this "stuff" miraculously emerged, you would howl with laughter and amazement that anyone would actually believe it.

No, it is you who need to learn about history.

And no Robert, there are NO SYMBOLS in Christs Church. NONE. No NOTHING.

That is the most ignorant thing I have heard you say yet (ignorant meaning lacking in knowledge).  OK, not the most ignorant thing, but close to it.  You repeatedly show your complete lack of knowledge on history, and now archaeology, yet claim that you are right.  PROVE that there were no symbols in Christ's Church.  I've been in the catacombs and personally seen the paintings drawn on the tombs.  They were symbols, Dram.  The fish.  The good shepherd holding a sheep. ICTHUS.  the Chi-Ro symbol.  The Alpha-Omega.   All are down there, put there by the early Christians, some with prayers right next to them.

Why, here's one:

wait, is that an image of the two apostles who were in Rome?  Paul and... PETER???  With the symbol of Christ right above Peter's name and not Paul's?

Wow!  symbols in Christ's Church!

Here's another one:

There's the fish and the anchor on each end.  Two more symbols of Christ.

And this one was a symbol for the Eucharist:

The fish being the symbol of Christ, and the loaves being the symbol of the bread used in the Eucharist.  Here's another one of the Eucharist:


Now, with all these symbols, either the Christians of the day had it wrong less than 250 years after Christ died, or perhaps...

just maybe...

could it possibly be?...

YOU are wrong. (or are those pictures all fakes from medieval times?)




Now, to get to the topic of the thread.  I don't know if I'd pay $300 to go to a conference on the Shroud.  Is it the burial cloth of Christ?  I don't know.  There's more and more evidence pointing to the notion that it is definitely the burial cloth of someone from Jesus' time and place.  I'll reserve judgement for later when I've had time to look at the issue more closely.  Either way, my faith in Christ doesn't rest on it being Christ's burial cloth.

Quoted: I suspect the only reason Protestants dislike the Shroud is a knee-jerk anti-Catholicism, not some bible-based conclusion based on scriptural study.

Not for me. I dislike it because there is NO proof it is THE shroud mentioned in scripture. I just dont like falsehoods even unintentional. If it were beyond a doubt real? Then I wouldnt have much a problem with all the fascination over it.


ETA. I dont really have anything against folks that think its real. If you do, great.

Loony,

Your effort to prove through pictures et al is laudable. So is the level of your faith.

You and I and a few of the others are from utterly irreconcileable sides of the fence.

Plain truth.

If you could not understand my post, and its basis in scripture, then there is nothing more to say, now is there?

Everything you have posted can be refuted.

But to what point?

You are apparently quite happy with the system of beliefs that the catholic church has evolved over 14 or 15 centuries, and it suits your particular spiritual needs to a T.

The historical record, written by catholics themselves and regular historians... is utterly damning of the actions of a large number of popes, cardinals, etc through history.

If you want some of it, let me know, I will post it when I have time.

I am just not interested in man made religions and rules. Not at all. Nor symbols carved on tombs that have no weight or basis in scripture. Just not interested.

The basis for the catholic church is as a political power, throughout its history. The pope even had his own army fer' crying out loud. The popes held absolute sway over the Western world for centuries through intrigue and warfare on a grand scale.

Which is FINE, you can have that. I dont want it, not even a smidgen. To ME, it is the nadir of all that is wrong in religion today. But, again, that is the opinion of one who seeks to serve Christ as did those first century Christians. That is my aim, that is my goal and it cannot be done through the process that your faith has chosen to promulgate and espouse. It is NOT first century Christianity. But, again, that is just fine as long as I am not required to bow down to it.

We will never agree boys. Plain and simple.

Dram out

Quoted: Nor symbols carved on tombs that have no weight or basis in scripture. Just not interested.

Many of those symbols represented Jesus.

And many of the early poor Christians could not read a Bible which did not even exist at that time, but they could recognize the symbols Christians used to secretly identify themselves and their meeting places. There the Apostles could tell the story of Jesus. In some of the surviving first churches from the age of persecution you can still see the paintings, murals, and symbols on the walls representing Christ and his mission. Peter died alongside many of those early Christian converts and later that was painted too. Some of his story survived in print which you can read in the Bible, but most was lost.

The Bible as a personally owned book was simply out of reach for the majority of people for almost 2000 years. Owning one would be the equivalent of being an astronaut today. So those symbols and pictures on the wall or doorway meant a lot to the early and the later Christians, something lost on scripture elitists today, who have little or nothing in common with the poor people Peter gathered for those services in secret.

So if the Ark is found and Gods own handwriting on the tablets is preserved, what will you believe? What if Moses’ bronze serpent is found and it still cures the sick? It is written God’s power worked through the symbol of a snake and a couple of stone tablets. God’s power is not in the book you hold in your hand or in your man made chapters and verses. Jesus never held a Bible in his hands. It’s a man made book to help you understand the greater picture, not an end in itself. God is not found in a book. It's just another of God’s tools like symbols and paintings on the wall.

Quoted: Quoted: I suspect the only reason Protestants dislike the Shroud is a knee-jerk anti-Catholicism, not some bible-based conclusion based on scriptural study. Not for me. I dislike it because there is NO proof it is THE shroud mentioned in scripture. I just dont like falsehoods even unintentional. If it were beyond a doubt real? Then I wouldnt have much a problem with all the fascination over it. ETA. I dont really have anything against folks that think its real. If you do, great.

Right on target.  Man has a tendency to deviate his attention away from God and toward tangible trinkets (false gods).  The one true god recognized this in scripture and addressed this in commandment #1, among other places.  I believe He doesn't want us to have the true shroud or the true "holy grail" or the original ark for the same reason He won't let us see Eden.

If you can't believe Him without these things, your faith is truly weak.  BTW, the whole holy grail debate is pretty sophomoric.  Jesus had NO possessions -- none!  So how do we know what the cup was made of?  What does it matter?  It probably belonged to the owner of the upper room.  It was just a cup!  It has no special powers or magical blessing.  It likely doesn't even exist anymore.

See, that's my point.  Who cares whether the shroud is authentic?  Who cares where the holy grail is?  It has absolutely no bearing on your eternal soul!  These objects are used by the enemy to divide us!

These things, authentic or not, are at best sentimental pieces of history and at worst tools of Satan himself to sow doubt and confusion.

If you believe it's real, fine.  That's up to you.  But don't let objects get in the way of your faith!  And don't let your faith in an object substitute for the true faith that God expects and demands from you.

Quoted: I believe He doesn't want us to have the true shroud or the true "holy grail" or the original ark for the same reason He won't let us see Eden.

I could use the same argument against the Bible. The Bible becomes a false god to many. How many people hold it up and worship it and pick out single lines as the key to salvation while ignoring the real God behind it?

If you take away the words of men and stick with the actual words of God, the Bible would be a short pamphlet and you guys would have little to argue over.

Maybe the complete book is issued after you die.

A print copy of God's Word vs. a historical trinket with sentimental value and questionable authenticity.

That's an utterly useless analogy.

Quoted: A print copy of God's Word vs. a historical trinket with sentimental value and questionable authenticity. That's an utterly useless analogy.

A piece of paper is worth more to you than the stone tablets God wrote the Ten Commandments on?

Quoted: the Dallas International Shroud of Turin Conference is going on this week and weekend. I was going to go check it out, but the price for entrance is $300 (ouch) There is new evidence that the medieval dating is wrong and wondered what everyone thought about the shroud.

Don't know. Personally I think it is a fraud.

Even if real, it makes no real difference to Chrisitan faith.

Quoted: they are saying that it dated a medieval patch applied the shroud funnily enough, that was one of the conspiracy theories floating around after the original STURP dating.  It was done to hide the fact that the shroud was real because it proved Jesus had survived the crucifixion and the resurrection never happened

Nobody survived a Roman crucifixion.

The Romans were masters of execution. No one before or since has been as brutal or thorough as the Romans when it comes to executing criminals or dissidents.

Quoted: Quoted: they are saying that it dated a medieval patch applied the shroud funnily enough, that was one of the conspiracy theories floating around after the original STURP dating.  It was done to hide the fact that the shroud was real because it proved Jesus had survived the crucifixion and the resurrection never happened Nobody survived a Roman crucifixion. The Romans were masters of execution. No one before or since has been as brutal or thorough as the Romans when it comes to executing criminals or dissidents.

Umm that is incorrect.  

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote: …On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognised three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the orders that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended by the doctor; the third recovered.

Quoted: Umm that is incorrect.

Let me be more precise.

Nobody who was beaten to the point of being unrecognizable, then nailed to a cross for hours and then stabbed in the side with spear so that blood and water poured out of his side survived a crucifixion.

The Romans usually guarded those they crucified and broke their legs after a period of time to go ahead and finally finish the job.

So perhaps if you managed to find a person on a cross who was not under the watchful eyes of the Romans and could get him off the cross, you might have a slight chance of seeing someone survive a crucifixion.

Now, anyone care to take bets on what percentage of crucifixions ended in a survivor?

Quoted: Quoted: A print copy of God's Word vs. a historical trinket with sentimental value and questionable authenticity. That's an utterly useless analogy. A piece of paper is worth more to you than the stone tablets God wrote the Ten Commandments on?

You don't get it.  The paper is worthless except that it carries the Word of God -- including the content of the tablets.  The actual stone tablets themselves are also worthless, except that they carried the Word of God.

Would it be interesting if we physically had them to look at?  Sure!  But they're just sentimental objects with historical significance and not one shred of eternal value.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make.  DO NOT LET YOUR REVERENCE FOR OBJECTS INTERFERE WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.  He wants you to know Him, not worthless objects that are associated with Him.  In a secular sense, Jesus owned nothing.  In an eternal sense, He owns everything.  So what difference does an object make to your eternal salvation?

I don't mind quoting myself to drive the point:

These things, authentic or not, are at best sentimental pieces of history and at worst tools of Satan himself to sow doubt and confusion. If you believe it's real, fine. That's up to you. But don't let objects get in the way of your faith! And don't let your faith in an object substitute for the true faith that God expects and demands from you.

Quoted: Quoted: Umm that is incorrect.   Let me be more precise. Nobody who was beaten to the point of being unrecognizable, then nailed to a cross for hours and then stabbed in the side with spear so that blood and water poured out of his side survived a crucifixion. The Romans usually guarded those they crucified and broke their legs after a period of time to go ahead and finally finish the job. So perhaps if you managed to find a person on a cross who was not under the watchful eyes of the Romans and could get him off the cross, you might have a slight chance of seeing someone survive a crucifixion. Now, anyone care to take bets on what percentage of crucifixions ended in a survivor?

well from the data available, if you were taken down you had a 1 in 3 chance...

Quoted: Quoted: A print copy of God's Word vs. a historical trinket with sentimental value and questionable authenticity. That's an utterly useless analogy. A piece of paper is worth more to you than the stone tablets God wrote the Ten Commandments on?

For me it wouldnt matter too much.

I guess I  would see more value in a complete bible that has the instructions for Salvation and revealing of Gods Holiness and Sovereignty. I think that even though the stone tablets would be cool if found (then again finding the Ark would be interestng) It is nowhere as near profitable as the instructions for life found in the bible.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: they are saying that it dated a medieval patch applied the shroud funnily enough, that was one of the conspiracy theories floating around after the original STURP dating.  It was done to hide the fact that the shroud was real because it proved Jesus had survived the crucifixion and the resurrection never happened Nobody survived a Roman crucifixion. The Romans were masters of execution. No one before or since has been as brutal or thorough as the Romans when it comes to executing criminals or dissidents. Umm that is incorrect.   The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote: …On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognised three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the orders that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended by the doctor; the third recovered.

There were folks that made it a point to rescue crucifiction victims. Many did survive because of them. However Jesus had guards placed and a spear thrust into him just in case.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: they are saying that it dated a medieval patch applied the shroud funnily enough, that was one of the conspiracy theories floating around after the original STURP dating.  It was done to hide the fact that the shroud was real because it proved Jesus had survived the crucifixion and the resurrection never happened Nobody survived a Roman crucifixion. The Romans were masters of execution. No one before or since has been as brutal or thorough as the Romans when it comes to executing criminals or dissidents. Umm that is incorrect.   The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote: …On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognised three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the orders that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended by the doctor; the third recovered. There were folks that made it a point to rescue crucifiction victims. Many did survive because of them. However Jesus had guards placed and a spear thrust into him just in case.

note: I am not a believer in the survival theory.   I just responded to ARowner saying that noone ever survived a crucifixion.

The survival theories usually has the Roman soldier, often identified as Longinus, as being part of the conspiracy to pull the comatose Jesus off of the cross.    

The book that introduced me to the theory, Jesus lived in India used the shroud as "proof" that Jesus had survived.   After it was dated to medieval times the same author wrote a book defending the 1st century age of the relic as well.

Neat read even if you take the thesis with a grain of salt.   It has a lot of factual evidence about the Jewish presence in Kashmir.

My personal theory is that Thomas was confused with the message he was bringing and was identified with Jesus.  

The Acts of Thomas are an interesting read for anyone curious about the subject.

I honestly don't know what makes me think this but....

The reason guards were posted was not to see that the victims weren't rescued from the cross, but so that they weren't fed. Surviving crucifixion is easy... as long as you're being fed and watered. The cross is merely an extremely painful, cruel, and humiliating public form of restraint. It's the exposure, dehydration and starvation that really kills.

But like I said. I could be completely wrong.

Quoted: I honestly don't know what makes me think this but.... The reason guards were posted was not to see that the victims weren't rescued from the cross, but so that they weren't fed. Surviving crucifixion is easy... as long as you're being fed and watered. The cross is merely an extremely painful, cruel, and humiliating public form of restraint. It's the exposure, dehydration and starvation that really kills. But like I said. I could be completely wrong.

I was just imagining how horrible it would be if they Crucified someone, took em down a day later, fed them and dressed their wounds, then nailed them up again and did it over and over I bet there were some folks who had the misfortune of really pissing off a guard.

Crucifiction is certainly a nasty way to go.

Quoted: I honestly don't know what makes me think this but.... The reason guards were posted was not to see that the victims weren't rescued from the cross, but so that they weren't fed. Surviving crucifixion is easy... as long as you're being fed and watered. The cross is merely an extremely painful, cruel, and humiliating public form of restraint. It's the exposure, dehydration and starvation that really kills. But like I said. I could be completely wrong.

Crucifixion is a slow means of suffocation. Held in the typical crucifixion position for a long period of time, you become less and less able to breathe. Towards the end of it you have to push with your legs to catch a breath. Remember that the Cross offered no support to the body of the person nailed to it. The full weight of the person was supported only by the hands and the feet, and even then the feet were nailed together with the legs bent. While hanging on the cross, gravity would try to pull the person off of the cross. Supporting themselves against it would require pushing with their legs, which would have been excruciatingly painful and difficult to do for any length of time before muscle fatigue set in.

The arms could not be used very much because in addition to the excruciating pain of pressure on them (the nail was put right where the nerves that control your hands are) they were positioned so as not to allow any significant support. Jesus would have been leaning very far forward putting extreme pressure on His chest and making it difficult to breathe. His shoulder joints would be hyper extended and His torso compressed. Ever noticed that it is harder to catch your breath all hunched over than standing straight up?

Try taking your arms, extending them backwards as far as you can, raising them above the level of your head, then almost doubling over and then breathing. After a short time you will notice that breathing becomes more labored. In order to relieve the pressure to breathe, Jesus would have had to push up with His legs to allow Him to get a decent breath. That too would have been excruciating and not possible to do for very long.

Being stripped naked and exposed to the middle eastern sun for hours at a time would indeed lead to dehydration and other symptoms, but the crucifixion itself was more than sufficient as a means of execution.

Crucifixion has been around since the time of the Persian empire, though the Romans made the most prolific use of it.

Adding to this, the severe beating Jesus took would have dehydrated Him a great deal before He was ever nailed to the cross. Jesus, a lifelong carpenter, was most likely in excellent shape. His lifestyle was one of constant exercise. A frailer man would not have survived the beating, much less endured long on the cross.

Quoted: Quoted: I honestly don't know what makes me think this but.... The reason guards were posted was not to see that the victims weren't rescued from the cross, but so that they weren't fed. Surviving crucifixion is easy... as long as you're being fed and watered. The cross is merely an extremely painful, cruel, and humiliating public form of restraint. It's the exposure, dehydration and starvation that really kills. But like I said. I could be completely wrong. Crucifixion is a slow means of suffocation. Held in the typical crucifixion position for a long period of time, you become less and less able to breathe. Towards the end of it you have to push with your legs to catch a breath. That is why the Romans broke the legs of those they crucified. It sped up their deaths. Being stripped naked and exposed to the middle eastern sun for hours at a time would indeed lead to dehydration and other symptoms, but the crucifixion itself was more than sufficient as a means of execution. Crucifixion has been around since the time of the Persian empire, though the Romans made the most prolific use of it. Adding to this, the severe beating Jesus took would have dehydrated Him a great deal before He was ever nailed to the cross. Jesus, a lifelong carpenter, was most likely in excellent shape. His lifestyle was one of constant exercise. A frailer man would not have survived the beating, much less endured long on the cross.

You're taking a lot fore granted, though.

You're taking for granted the idea that they were stripped at all. Doing this would have served no real purpose. You're taking for granted that ropes were not used. Given the time that even suffocation would take, I would certainly employ a secondary form of retraint so that even if the victim did manage to wiggle their appendages free of the nails, they still weren't going anywhere. You're taking for granted that a full cross was used in every case. Even if they reused them, which is certainly possible, there still wouldn't be enough to accomdate every one that was executed on a given day. It is certainly possible, and there is evidence to suggest this, that they used pretty much every tree available outside the city. Given the scarcity of wood in that region, I'd say that this was more than possible. And the last time I checked, olive trees are pretty knarly and twisted, quite possibly giving the victim a place to.. well... sit.

You're basing all of your assumptions on the currently accepted images of Christ crucified.. which is not necessarily the way it was done in every case. The fact is that we may never really know how it was actually done. No one has yet found "Crucifixion for Dummies."

Quoted: Quoted: I honestly don't know what makes me think this but.... The reason guards were posted was not to see that the victims weren't rescued from the cross, but so that they weren't fed. Surviving crucifixion is easy... as long as you're being fed and watered. The cross is merely an extremely painful, cruel, and humiliating public form of restraint. It's the exposure, dehydration and starvation that really kills. But like I said. I could be completely wrong. I was just imagining how horrible it would be if they Crucified someone, took em down a day later, fed them and dressed their wounds, then nailed them up again and did it over and over I bet there were some folks who had the misfortune of really pissing off a guard. Crucifiction is certainly a nasty way to go.

Compared to the muscle spasms and painful suffocation of hanging on the cross until death, being nailed to wood wasn't all that bad. The pain wasn't over when the last nail was driven in Him. It was just beginning.

Every second on the cross was more agonizing than the last. Being torn apart by an animal would be less painful than being crucified.

The Shroud was on display in Trier, Germany in 1994 or so.  I lived 30 minutes away, and went there on 2 different days to see it.

Both days, the line extended as far as you could see.

My ex and her parents stood in line (l wasn't gonna wait) for more than 4 hours and never got to see it.  They called and admitted defeat, and I went and picked them up.

Sad.

I really wanted to see it.

Don't quote me on that year - it was between 94 and 96.

Quoted: You're taking a lot fore granted, though. You're taking for granted the idea that they were stripped at all. Doing this would have served no real purpose.

The Romans were not minimalists. They stripped people naked for humiliation's sake. There was no real purpose in crucifying someone rather than just stabbing them with a sword either. Crucifixion was meant as the ultimate punishment, to be as painful and torturous as possible. There is evidence in Roman history that those who were crucified were usually stripped naked.

You're taking for granted that ropes were not used.

Ropes were most likely used in most crucifixions. But that does not stop the effects of crucifixion on the ability to breathe.

Given the time that even suffocation would take, I would certainly employ a secondary form of retraint so that even if the victim did manage to wiggle their appendages free of the nails, they still weren't going anywhere.

You have it backwards. The nails were used to keep people from wriggling free of the ropes. The nails were huge iron spikes driven into thick wooden beams. They weren't going anywhere. Nobody could pull them out of the wood, or pull the entire nail through their wrist area and through their feet to get free.

You're taking for granted that a full cross was used in every case. Even if they reused them, which is certainly possible, there still wouldn't be enough to accomdate every one that was executed on a given day.

The Romans were known to nail beams to olive trees to make their crosses, so realistically all someone would need is a tree and a beam. The Romans, who built roads, aqueducts, and the ancient world's most intricate structures certainly had more than enough resources to come up with crosses.

Further, there are not a few stories from Roman history that tell of HUNDREDS of people being crucified along the sides of Roman roads as a warning.

Lack of crosses would not have been a problem for them.

It is certainly possible, and there is evidence to suggest this, that they used pretty much every tree available outside the city. Given the scarcity of wood in that region, I'd say that this was more than possible. And the last time I checked, olive trees are pretty knarly and twisted, quite possibly giving the victim a place to.. well... sit.

Romans were known to use olive trees to do crucifixions, but they hardly gave someone a place to sit on them. Roman executioners took their jobs seriously.

You're basing all of your assumptions on the currently accepted images of Christ crucified.. which is not necessarily the way it was done in every case. The fact is that we may never really know how it was actually done. No one has yet found "Crucifixion for Dummies."

No, I am basing my statements on medical fact and Roman history. Crucifixion is a well documented practice and has been recounted in detail by many ancient writers. The effects on the body are easily verified by medical experts in our time.

Quoted: The Romans were known to nail beams to olive trees to make their crosses, so realistically all someone would need is a tree and a beam. The Romans, who built roads, aqueducts, and the ancient world's most intricate structures certainly had more than enough resources to come up with crosses. Further, there are not a few stories from Roman history that tell of HUNDREDS of people being crucified along the sides of Roman roads as a warning. Lack of crosses would not have been a problem for them.

They crucified 6000 of Sparticus men along the highway.

Quoted: Quoted: The Romans were known to nail beams to olive trees to make their crosses, so realistically all someone would need is a tree and a beam. The Romans, who built roads, aqueducts, and the ancient world's most intricate structures certainly had more than enough resources to come up with crosses. Further, there are not a few stories from Roman history that tell of HUNDREDS of people being crucified along the sides of Roman roads as a warning. Lack of crosses would not have been a problem for them. They crucified 6000 of Sparticus men along the highway.

the Romans not only crucified Spartacus' men but any criminal they were all to be shown on the Appian Way as reminder to people entering Rome that they were not to be trifled with, sorta state terrorism....

I would still rather be crucified than dealt with in Vladimir Tsepesch's manner.......   the Romans were cruel, Vladimir took it to an art form

and he did it to Christains as well as the Muslims, though he was arguably more prone towards the Muslims.


It has no real relevance on this thread, just a reminder that though Crucifixion is bad, there were worse thing.


Now could we please get back to the Shroud?  I am learning all sorts of nifty bits and pieces, though one last note-  On discovery they were running a show regarding jesus' last days. They had unearthed other tombs, including people who had been crucified, some showed signs of having been crucified but having survived after being taken down (mild healing of wounds etc.) Not everyone was crucified unto death, apparently the Romans were the first recyclers. One set of bones they found still ha d anail through the ankle, the tip had bent severely and it was impossible to remove it. It was stated (they had soem texts to support this position, though I cannot for the life of me remember the titles, authors, or ages of them) that the nails were reused, as was the timber, Iron worked nails being too expensive to bury with criminals.