Pope getting froggy

[RoBoTeq]

I would like to know the opinion of others on this sculpture; http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9489842&ch=4226714&src=news

Personally, aside from being a bit hideous, it doesn't bother me theologically at all. Even if the artist intended it to be a reference to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, crucifixion was a common practice in several eras and so the crucified frog could be depicting just about anything from that time period.

I think the Pope and the Catholic Church only bring criticism to themselves when they claim that altered depictions of the icons that the RCC itself invented are blasphemy. After all; fags don't get upset when an obviously straight guy like me wears pink:p

[glennac]

I would like to know the opinion of others on this sculpture; http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=9489842&ch=4226714&src=news

Personally, aside from being a bit hideous, it doesn't bother me theologically at all. Even if the artist intended it to be a reference to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, crucifixion was a common practice in several eras and so the crucified frog could be depicting just about anything from that time period.

I think the Pope and the Catholic Church only bring criticism to themselves when they claim that altered depictions of the icons that the RCC itself invented are blasphemy. After all; fags don't get upset when an obviously straight guy like me wears pink:p

Robo while not been a Catholic but a Christian I am indeed offended by that not to sud-dale attack on Christianity and Jesus Christ. I am surprised that you being a Christian and that is just fine with you. We are not allowed to say anything about Jews but it is perfectly fine to attack Christians and Jesus all the time. Now if the Pope is upset with it that is OK with me. I agree that it is blasphemous and should not be allowed to be displayed. So you got my opinion and it a big no to the sculpture

[RoBoTeq]

Robo while not been a Catholic but a Christian I am indeed offended by that not to sud-dale attack on Christianity and Jesus Christ. I am surprised that you being a Christian and that is just fine with you. We are not allowed to say anything about Jews but it is perfectly fine to attack Christians and Jesus all the time. Now if the Pope is upset with it that is OK with me. I agree that it is blasphemous and should not be allowed to be displayed. So you got my opinion and it a big no to the sculpture
We can all take offense to something, and we have the right to feel that something is blasphemis to our beliefs, but, does that give us all the right to demand that things deemed offensive not be allowed? If that is the case, everything could come under attact. Being Politically Correct already keeps us from knowing what others are thinking, do we really need more censorship in our lives.

As for my personal Christian faith, I do not consider the crucifiction to be a very depictive icon of Jesus Christ. It is an icon that was perpetrated by the RCC and to me is a negative shadow on Christ's teachings and especially on Christ's gift of Salvation to us. After all, is Jesus Christ's Word the Good News (Gospel) or about being tortured?

[bootlen]

After all; fags don't get upset when an obviously straight guy like me wears pink:p

Maybe for a reason...:eek:

Watch the language.

[RoBoTeq]

Maybe for a reason...:eek:

Watch the language.
Sorry, didn't mean to use the words straight and pink in the same subject:o

[Jack2007]

We can all take offense to something, and we have the right to feel that something is blasphemis to our beliefs, but, does that give us all the right to demand that things deemed offensive not be allowed? If that is the case, everything could come under attact. Being Politically Correct already keeps us from knowing what others are thinking, do we really need more censorship in our lives.

As for my personal Christian faith, I do not consider the crucifiction to be a very depictive icon of Jesus Christ. It is an icon that was perpetrated by the RCC and to me is a negative shadow on Christ's teachings and especially on Christ's gift of Salvation to us. After all, is Jesus Christ's Word the Good News (Gospel) or about being tortured?
Muslims do.
.

[RoBoTeq]

Muslims do.
.
Good point. By getting all in a tizzy over iconry we become very much like the Islamic whackos we criticize for going nuts over comic drawings.

[bootlen]

After all, is Jesus Christ's Word the Good News (Gospel) or about being tortured?

Well, given that the Gospel is the perfect life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, I'd say, yes, to both. Without any one of those, there is no Good News.

And the RCC did not perpetuate the crucifixion. Fact is, crucifixion was vaguely depicted in the OT prophets, manifested in the 4 gospels, and repeated time and again in the NT, all IN SPITE of the RCC, not because of it. The Bible was texted in a dead language (Latin) by the RCC to keep it out of the hands of the general populace because they thought it was too good to be read by them and it also gave the RCC more control over believers. Then Luther came along and upset the apple cart.

The RCC still tries to control its members beyond what God calls a church to do. And they are way off base on many doctrines.

[bootlen]

BTW, Robo, There will be scars in Heaven...all of 'em on Jesus...as a reminder of His loving sacrifice for us.

[derbysr]

The Bible contains words of encouragement as well as words of warning. It's important to appreciate both for their instruction in our walk with Christ.
The more we meditate on the Scriptures, the closer we'll walk with the Savior.

[RoBoTeq]

BTW, Robo, There will be scars in Heaven...all of 'em on Jesus...as a reminder of His loving sacrifice for us.
I am quite aware of Jesus's suffering on the cross. I just don't believe that is what Jesus desires us to dwell on. The RCC has perpetuated the Passion of Christ in order to keep the masses feeling guilt and repress them with fear.

Jesus teaches us love and compassion, not guilt and fear because of His passion.

[bootlen]

Of course we are not to feel fear or guilt. Quite the opposite. NT teaches over and over we are to come to Christ as the RISEN Savior...not a defeated victim. The gospel teaches absolute and total victory through Christ over death, hell, and the grave. Christ Himself ordained communion to represent His broken and bleeding body. "This do in remembrance of me." Without His suffering and our acknowledgment of it, we are lost.

[derbysr]

I hope this helps :
1 John 4:16-19
16 We know how much God loves us, and we have put our trust in his love.
God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God lives in them. 17 And as we live in God, our love grows more perfect. So we will not be afraid on the day of judgment, but we can face him with confidence because we live like Jesus here in this world.
18 Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love. 19 We love each other because he loved us first.Holy Bible, New Living Translation ®, copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers. All rights reserved.

[RoBoTeq]

Nope; that Bible quote didn't do a thing for my wondering why the Pope is making such a to do over an icon. I am a Christian, not a Jesus bleeding on the crosstian. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, not in Jesus Christ the suffering Saviour. Yes, I know Jesus suffered for all humanity. How the hell does someone sculpting a weird looking frog on a cross blaspheme Jesus's gift of Salvation? We may as well bannish clothes line poles.

[bootlen]

Personally, I think it was childish. The more that's made over it (good, bad, or indifferent), the more they like it. Sorta like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. It should have been left alone and it would have been a non-story. Frankly, I am not offended. Christ said there would be folks like that. If He is not surprised, why should I be?

[RoBoTeq]

Personally, I think it was childish. The more that's made over it (good, bad, or indifferent), the more they like it. Sorta like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. It should have been left alone and it would have been a non-story. Frankly, I am not offended. Christ said there would be folks like that. If He is not surprised, why should I be?
If you are referring to the Pope's reaction being childish, I agree. According to the video, the German artist claimed it was a self depiction piece. Maybe he saw himself as being a toad who was crucified for his desire for beer and eggs.

I remember some of the crap I got from fundamentalists over my charcoal drawing of a very Jewish looking Jesus in a full belly laugh. It is the only Christian depiction I have in my home and it reminds me daily that God not only has a sense of humor but probably thinks I'm pretty funny.

[bootlen]

The Pope AND the frog "crucifixion", actually. It was done, I am sure to create waves. Anything over a ripple is ludicrous.

[RoBoTeq]

The Pope AND the frog "crucifixion", actually. It was done, I am sure to create waves. Anything over a ripple is ludicrous.
We cannot know that for certain about the artist. Just because we may have feelings for an icon does not mean that everyone must have those same feelings. It could be that the artist was just not a man of faith, or maybe a man of faith who just has no respect for iconry.

[razorwit]

A self portrait depicting human angst?
Get real.

It's blasphemous in nature and Christ has already asked his father to forgive us all for these types of transgressions.

Catholics as well as other Christians are encouraged to be mindful of Christ's suffering for mankind, not as means to induce guilt.
God knows there's plenty enough guilt to go around.

Bootlen said it best.
It should be ignored.

[derbysr]

Maybe this will help !
1 Cor 8:9 But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble. OUCH

[RoBoTeq]

A self portrait depicting human angst?
Get real.

It's blasphemous in nature and Christ has already asked his father to forgive us all for these types of transgressions.

Catholics as well as other Christians are encouraged to be mindful of Christ's suffering for mankind, not as means to induce guilt.
God knows there's plenty enough guilt to go around.

Bootlen said it best.
It should be ignored.
And I agree it should be ignored by those who it offends. Just as anything in life that offends us on any personal level should be ignored as long as it is not being forced on us. I certainly would not go out of my way to view such works of so called art and may even go out of my way to avoid such things.

My reason for inquiring about things like this are to attempt to determine if such things that offend us benefit by our public disdain more then they would if they were just ignored. Ignoring things can sometimes allow them to fester an grow in the darkness while bringing things to light can sometimes show them for the disease that they are. It is a quandry to me.

[derbysr]

Ignoring things can sometimes allow them to fester an grow in the darkness while bringing things to light can sometimes show them for the disease that they are. It is a quandry to me.
Well said!

[r404a]

The "artwork" is a disgrace and should be taken down.


r404a

[RoBoTeq]

The "artwork" is a disgrace and should be taken down.


r404a
Wouldn't that be censorship? How do we determine what is disgraceful to all or not? Should we also burn the books that show that sculpture? Who makes the decisions as to what is ok to make and display and what is not?

I think that pregnant woman in the nude are creepy. Really. Call it a quirk or what ever you want, but photos of pregnant woman creep me out. So, shouldn't all photos of pregnant women be banned?

What about clowns? Ewwwwww:o, they are even creepier then pregnant woman are. And the Pope? The Pope is like the worst symbol to hundreds of thousands of Muslims, so shouldn't all visions of the Pope be banished?

Cows? Unless they are wild cows living a natural free life, they are pretty offensive to vegetarians. Shouldn't they be banned?

[bootlen]

Ignoring things can sometimes allow them to fester an grow in the darkness while bringing things to light can sometimes show them for the disease that they are. It is a quandry to me.
Well said!

I agree. They can. Sometimes. But this is nothing more than a childish attempt at art OR someone who seriously needs mental help OR someone who just likes to stir. In any case, ignoring the "work" is the best course.

[RoBoTeq]

I agree. They can. Sometimes. But this is nothing more than a childish attempt at art OR someone who seriously needs mental help OR someone who just likes to stir. In any case, ignoring the "work" is the best course.
Maybe the artist is just someone from a non-religious background who has no concept of how Christians might feel about Christian icons. We cannot all be expected to understand and be totally sensitive to the beliefs, feelings and sensitivities of everyone else.

By the conditions I am reading as to why this work of art should be banned, Muslims are correct in their reactions to the cartoons they went nutso over.

[bootlen]

Maybe the artist is just someone from a non-religious background who has no concept of how Christians might feel about Christian icons. We cannot all be expected to understand and be totally sensitive to the beliefs, feelings and sensitivities of everyone else.

And the moon could be made of cheese.

By the conditions I am reading as to why this work of art should be banned, Muslims are correct in their reactions to the cartoons they went nutso over.

Agree. And a lot fewer would have known about it had they kept THEIR mouths shut.

As to the frog story...pffft.

[RoBoTeq]

Maybe the artist is just someone from a non-religious background who has no concept of how Christians might feel about Christian icons. We cannot all be expected to understand and be totally sensitive to the beliefs, feelings and sensitivities of everyone else.

And the moon could be made of cheese.

By the conditions I am reading as to why this work of art should be banned, Muslims are correct in their reactions to the cartoons they went nutso over.

Agree. And a lot fewer would have known about it had they kept THEIR mouths shut.

As to the frog story...pffft.
:DHmmm, I'm not reading much consideration for our fellow man here bootsy. What I'm reading is that things must be your way or the highway. I'm not comfy with that atitude;)

[bootlen]

No reason to feel that way. I just expressed my personal beliefs about the guy. Am I not allowed to express them?

[RoBoTeq]

No reason to feel that way. I just expressed my personal beliefs about the guy. Am I not allowed to express them?
Absolutely. My apologies for making such a personal commentary about you. I'm just a bit surprised at what seems to me to be a lack of tolerance for the possible ignorance of others.

Would that frog be just as offensive to you pinned to a star of David or sitting on top of the Dome of the Rock? It might be to Jews for the former and to Muslims for the latter. Would either of these be reasonable to be offended? Should that damned frog just not be allowed anywhere?

[bootlen]

If the guy is either a mental case OR just ignorant of the significance, I retract my point. However, I would imagine there is a 90% chance he was just being childish. You see, I'm a realist. What are the chances a guy who had a green frog nailed to a crucifix in the same manner of Jesus was unaware of the significance of the icon to Christians? This calls for intellectual honesty, ya know.

[glennac]

Absolutely. My apologies for making such a personal commentary about you. I'm just a bit surprised at what seems to me to be a lack of tolerance for the possible ignorance of others.

Would that frog be just as offensive to you pinned to a star of David or sitting on top of the Dome of the Rock? It might be to Jews for the former and to Muslims for the latter. Would either of these be reasonable to be offended? Should that damned frog just not be allowed anywhere?

You all keep on and on how the artist with the frog should be allowed his "artistic freedom". Well I can't argue that point other than say that it shouldn't have any pubic funding for the display or any grants to the artist. Now if some one would put a cartoon depicting a Jew in a very derogatory light he would be roundly condemned by Christians and Jews alike but no body not even most Christians object when Jesus is mocked or Christianity is bashed. And I might add a lot of the time those who do it are from Jewish background but not necessarily of the Jewish faith. Just my two cents worth.

[RoBoTeq]

If the guy is either a mental case OR just ignorant of the significance, I retract my point. However, I would imagine there is a 90% chance he was just being childish. You see, I'm a realist. What are the chances a guy who had a green frog nailed to a crucifix in the same manner of Jesus was unaware of the significance of the icon to Christians? This calls for intellectual honesty, ya know.
Obviously the artist was "aware" of Christian iconry, but as to the significance, what Christians are we talking about here? Am I not a good Christian in your eyes because I think depictions of our Lord in pain and agony nailed to an iconic and most likely historically wrong torture device is a barbaric and wrong minded way to think of the True teachings of our Lord and Saviour?

What about the European Rennaisance paintings depicting our Lord as some pasty Anglo looking guy? I would think that if anything would offend God it would be having Jesus wrongly depicted as not Jewish. Should not all of those very wrongly depicted visions of Jesus be banished from public view?

What if a lamb were on that piece of art instead of a frog? Maybe the guy just likes frogs. What is the beer mug for? The egg?

[bootlen]

Obviously the artist was "aware" of Christian iconry, but as to the significance, what Christians are we talking about here? Am I not a good Christian in your eyes because I think depictions of our Lord in pain and agony nailed to an iconic and most likely historically wrong torture device is a barbaric and wrong minded way to think of the True teachings of our Lord and Saviour?

I don't think Christ should be portrayed as being on the cross at all, other than in a drama, because last time I checked, He was no longer there...anymore than He is in a grave. However, there are many EMPTY crosses in Christianity as a symbol of His victory over death. The cross is empty. It lost its prey. It failed in its attempt to destroy God's perfect plan. Christ is risen victorious. That is what the empty cross means to me. But as far as putting anything on a cross today, particularly in the exact manner as Christ is childish in the extreme. It ain't rocket science, Robo.

What about the European Rennaisance paintings depicting our Lord as some pasty Anglo looking guy? I would think that if anything would offend God it would be having Jesus wrongly depicted as not Jewish. Should not all of those very wrongly depicted visions of Jesus be banished from public view?

Obviously, ignorance. Please. I hope you have a point.

What if a lamb were on that piece of art instead of a frog?

But it wasn't. But a lamb would hold some possible acceptable significance for those who are aware of the Christ/Lamb relationship.

Maybe the guy just likes frogs.

Could be.

What is the beer mug for? The egg?

I wouldn't have a clue. Is there not a brochure to explain? If not, the "artist" wasted his time for sure. Or even if there were, I think he wasted his time. Never mind an otherwise perfectly cute frog.

[RoBoTeq]

You all keep on and on how the artist with the frog should be allowed his "artistic freedom". Well I can't argue that point other than say that it shouldn't have any pubic funding for the display or any grants to the artist. Now if some one would put a cartoon depicting a Jew in a very derogatory light he would be roundly condemned by Christians and Jews alike but no body not even most Christians object when Jesus is mocked or Christianity is bashed. And I might add a lot of the time those who do it are from Jewish background but not necessarily of the Jewish faith. Just my two cents worth.
I don't want public funding for any artwork. Art is completely subjective and no art is going to satisfy all taxpayers so no taxpayer should have to pay for any art. Artistic freedom is, like all freedoms, worth protecting under any circumstances.

I am not sure what your issue is with Jews in particular, but Jews certainly do take a lot of ribbing in art, cartoons and just about all mediums. Hell, you never see a Mel Brooks movie.

Just where does the world draw the lines on what should be allowed to be expressed? What if the artist of the crucified frog did have issues with the crucifixian of Christ and was expressing his feelings? Should we not all have the right to express how we feel about the way others feel? Should The Ballad of John and Yoko still be censored the way it was when it was first released? What about the Jesus on a rubber cross joke? Where do we draw the lines? Should we draw lines?

[RoBoTeq]

That frog is not cute! That is one hideous and distorted frog:confused:

However, if the frog had been stuck on the end of a stick, an actually more historically accurate depiction of a crucifixion, it would not have attracted the attention of the Pope.

[bootlen]

That frog is not cute! That is one hideous and distorted frog:confused:

Oh, sure. NOW.

However, if the frog had been stuck on the end of a stick, an actually more historically accurate depiction of a crucifixion, (Possibly.) it would not have attracted the attention of the Pope.

Of course not. He would only have thought of his gigging days.:rolleyes:

[glennac]

That frog is not cute! That is one hideous and distorted frog:confused:

However, if the frog had been stuck on the end of a stick, an actually more historically accurate depiction of a crucifixion, it would not have attracted the attention of the Pope.

robo, surly you are not rewriting the Bible and claiming that Jesus was "crucified" on the end of a "stick" and not on the cross. Please clarify, perhaps you did not mean what you wrote?

[RoBoTeq]

robo, surly you are not rewriting the Bible and claiming that Jesus was "crucified" on the end of a "stick" and not on the cross. Please clarify, perhaps you did not mean what you wrote?
Actually, not on the end of a stick, that was a practice for the impalers. However, historical records indicate that crucifixion was mostly done on simple upright poles. Also, the ancient Greek word used for what we refer to as a cross is actually for pole or stick, not cross. Etomologically, there is no mention of a cross in any of the ancient writings depicting the crucifixion of Christ.

So, it is not me who is attempting to rewrite the Bible but rather others who have made the cross popular.

[corny]

robo, surly you are not rewriting the Bible and claiming that Jesus was "crucified" on the end of a "stick" and not on the cross. Please clarify, perhaps you did not mean what you wrote?

romans didnt crucify folks the way jesus is usually depicted...they used trees...T shaped crosses....and just plain old poles.....

I dont think there is any historical evidence to christ having been crucified on a cross shaped like the christian cross. Bled their victims first too....and in most cases the family couldnt cut the body down for burial....one of the points of crucifiction was to let the body waste away on the pole..

I forget where I read it but I believe the romans mostly used straight poles or logs or whatever.....sorta like a telephone pole...

If you want historical facts...read some ancient history books...not the bible... There were many folks who wrote quite a bit during the roman times....we know a great deal about how these folks lived and died....

google books has a lot of ancient history books online...and so does the gutenburg project. You can also find a lot of old hvac related books at those places too....lots of interesting books on old sheetmetal, boilers...old refrigeration systems...old electrical books.......odl books from the early 20th century and before on all subjects.

Oh..and Im not knocking the bible....just that its not a history book....its a life guide....

[glennac]

Actually, not on the end of a stick, that was a practice for the impalers. However, historical records indicate that crucifixion was mostly done on simple upright poles. Also, the ancient Greek word used for what we refer to as a cross is actually for pole or stick, not cross. Etomologically, there is no mention of a cross in any of the ancient writings depicting the crucifixion of Christ.

So, it is not me who is attempting to rewrite the Bible but rather others who have made the cross popular.

robo, I can't read Greek nor if I could would have time to study over all the ancient Greek writings which I doupt you do either. Cut us some slack here. I'm sure if there was something other than the cross on which Jesus was crucified that it would have came out in one of the many versions of the Bible which have been written over the centuries. Lighten up a little here.

Also why are you always challenging traditional beliefs of Christianity? You just like to stir the pot or get some "traditionalists" (those of us who have grown up hearing the word in Sunday school and on the pulpit) Christians. I am just curious.

[corny]

The ancient greek bibles described the crucifiction device as a stake......or pole....

[bootlen]

http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm

[RoBoTeq]

robo, I can't read Greek nor if I could would have time to study over all the ancient Greek writings which I doupt you do either. Cut us some slack here. I'm sure if there was something other than the cross on which Jesus was crucified that it would have came out in one of the many versions of the Bible which have been written over the centuries. Lighten up a little here.

Also why are you always challenging traditional beliefs of Christianity? You just like to stir the pot or get some "traditionalists" (those of us who have grown up hearing the word in Sunday school and on the pulpit) Christians. I am just curious.
Sorry to shake your version of traditional with facts Glenn, but I do indeed spend a lot of time studying Biblical text through other historical references of the times the Bible stories take place, archaeology, entomology and anthropology. I don't exactly study ancient Greek and Hebrew (the languages of the original New Testament and Hebrew Bible respectively), but I do study different versions of the Bible using the Greek and Hebrew translations of each and every word in the Bibles, numbered in the Strong's Concordance.

So Glenn, if you are accusing me of anything, you are accusing me of desiring the Truth. What would Jesus think about that?

[bootlen]

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/crucifix.htm

See "Methods of Crucifixion".

[RoBoTeq]

http://www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm
Everything I have read as well indicates that the cross type of crucifixion was introduced well after the time of Jesus's time on Earth as a mortal. BAR (Biblical Archeaological Review) is one of my favorite sources for archeaology supported Biblical references. The originator and chief editor, Hershel Shanks, is a real up front kind of a Bible related sleuth.

[razorwit]

From the looks of this thread, Bootlen owns it!
Nice posts there Bootlen.

If the "artist" was worth his salt, his rendition of 'human angst' should have at least, included a human. LMAO!

[RoBoTeq]

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/crucifix.htm

See "Methods of Crucifixion".
This source is very biased on tradition and is not supported by the entomology of any of the oldest versions of Biblical texts writen in ancient languages. All of these texts use an ancient Greek term for pole or stick, which was also the most usual form of crucifixion practiced by the Romans.

[derbysr]

GREEK
NT:4716
NT:4716
<START GREEK>stauro/$
<END GREEK> stauros (stow-ros'); from the base of NT:2476; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specifically) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ:


KJV - cross.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

[bootlen]

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/crossfacts.htm

Interesting.

[bootlen]

This source is very biased on tradition and is not supported by the entomology of any of the oldest versions of Biblical texts writen in ancient languages. All of these texts use an ancient Greek term for pole or stick, which was also the most usual form of crucifixion practiced by the Romans.

If the Greeks had a word for a + type of stauros, don't you think they would have used it, given they were tight-a$$es about words? That being the case, what would that word be?

[glennac]

It appears that we have a disagreement here among the resident Biblical scholars on this forum. Bootlen's link supports the cross whereas robo argues for a non "traditional" method other than the cross. I think I'll go with what I and millions of other Christians have been taught over the centuries and go with the cross.

John 19:17 (King James Version)

King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9) (KJV) Public Domain (http://www.biblegateway.com/help/faq/?id=2#10)
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=34) http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=24) http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=2)


17And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

I believe that this references the cross and not another forum of Crucifixion.

[derbysr]

Title WORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS:
Antiquities of the Jews
(from Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews)

Still "looking" for the writings where people that died in Romans hands were put to dead as an certain method .Its in there but it will take an while .More to come ............

[bootlen]

Title

WORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS:

Antiquities of the Jews

(from Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews,

What's the quote?

[RoBoTeq]

If the Greeks had a word for a + type of stauros, don't you think they would have used it, given they were tight-a$$es about words? That being the case, what would that word be?
Xstauros?:D

I know what you are getting at and agree. Would I "stauros" my life on there not being a cross beamed type of cross? No. Just stating that the evidence points more toward the crucifixion method used for Jesus being hung on a stake or pole. The cross, like so many other modern Christian icons, was more likely introduced by the Pagan Romans. Then you get into the etomological errors of the KJV which changed passover into Easter and sea of reeds into the Red Sea along with pole into cross.

[derbysr]

How each one of us is interpreting it does matter!
Does it matter Which Bible?
A Guide to English Translations
1. The Translator's Art These human authors wrote in the languages they knew: Greek for the New Testament, and Hebrew (with a smattering of Aramaic )2 for the Old Testament. And unless you are prepared to learn these ancient languages, you must use a translation to access the Word of God. The Word of God in the words of men Though dubbed 'the noblest monument of English prose',3 the Bible is anything but English, and it comes from a distant past and a remote culture. The challenges facing the translator cannot be overestimated. We first turn our attention to the Bible's original languages. New Testament Greek Like Hebrew, Greek has its own alphabet , but it is a European language and is written from left to right. The Greek of the NT is known as ‎koin¢ ‎(or common) Greek. It is not as elevated or polished as the more literary classical Greek dialects. Until relatively recently, no written examples of ‎koin¢ ‎Greek were known outside the Bible. But archaeological discoveries have shown that ‎koin¢ ‎Greek was the common language of business within the Roman Empire until replaced by Latin . NT koine Greek shows considerable OT influence and contains a large number of Hebrew-style expressions and grammatical forms. The NT also contains a few untranslated Aramaic words: ‎abba‎, meaning 'father', is the best-known. (from Which Bible? © 2004 by David Dewey. All rights reserved.)

[RoBoTeq]

Copying and pasting with no consideration for syntax makes the material that was copied and pasted pretty much useless.

It is not really that difficult to study Biblical text by using whichever translated (not interpretted) version that is most comfortable for you and then keeping a KJV version available along with a Strong's Concordance for being able to find specific Hebrew and/or Greek translations of specific words. Every word in the KJV is numbered and translated from it's original written language.

I also prefer the KJV for it's poetic value when quoting passages. However, for etomological accuracy, the KJV is one of the most innacurate. I prefer NIV versions for general study. I also use other Bible versions that contain apocrophic books for there historic value. Other Bibles I use are one that is set up in chronological order (standard Bibles books are not in chronological order) and even a New Testament Bible written from a Jewish standpoint.

[derbysr]

This is research done in an hurry , will come back tomorrow with the "rest of the story" on the Romans and Josephus method of torture.
Cross
(‎stauro/$‎, a pointed stake, prob. from ‎i%sthmi‎, to stand upright), in the New. Test., signifies properly the instrument of crucifixion; and hence (by metonymy) crucifixion itself, namely, that of Christ (Eph 2:16; Heb 12:2; 1 Cor 1:17,18; Gal 5:11; 6:12,14; Phil 3:18). It is also put figuratively (in the phrases "take up [or bear] the cross," etc.) for any severe suffering, including the idea of exposure to contumely and death (Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34; 10:21; Luke 9:23; 14:27).
I. Designations. — The Greek word ‎stauro/$ ‎properly, like ‎sko/loy‎, means merely a stake (Homer, Od. 14:11; II. 24:453). So Eustathius and Hesychius both define it. The Greeks use the word to translate both palus and crux; e. g. ‎staurw=| prosdei=n ‎in Dion. Cass. (49. 22) is exactly equivalent to the Latin ad palum deligare. In Livy even crux means a mere stake (28. 29), just as vice versa the fathers use ‎sko/loy‎, and even stipes, of a cross proper. In consequence of this vagueness of meaning, impaling (Herod. 9:76) is sometimes spoken of, loosely, as a kind of crucifixion, and ‎a)naskolopi/zein ‎is nearly equivalent to ‎a)nastaurou=n ‎(Seneca, Consol. ad Marc. 20; and Ep. 14). Other words occasionally applied to the cross are patibulum and furca, pieces of wood in the shape of ‎P ‎or ‎U ‎and ‎A ‎respectively (Dig. 48, tit. 13; Plautus Mil. Gl. 2:47; and Sallust, fr. ap. Non. 4:355, seems clearly to imply crucifixion).
II. Forms of the Cross. — In its simplest shape, consisting of two pieces of wood, one standing erect, the other crossing it at right angles, the cross was known at an early age in the history of the world. Its use as an instrument of punishment was probably suggested by the form so often taken by branches of trees, which seem to have been the first crosses that were employed. It was certainly customary to hang animals on trees. Cicero (Rabir. 3) appears to consider hanging on a tree and crucifixion as of the same import, and Seneca (Ep. 101) uses similar language. (See above.) Trees are known to have been used as crosses (Tertull. Ap. 8:16), and to every kind of hanging which bore a resemblance to crucifixion, such as that of Prometheus, Andromeda, etc., the name was commonly applied. Among the Scythians, Persians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, and the ancient Germans, traces are found of the cross as an instrument of punishment. T
The cross was a favorite form for the plan of churches; and great numbers are built in this shape, the Western churches mostly following, the Latin form of cross, the Byzantine churches following the Greek form, i.e., with the chancel, nave, and. two transepts all of equal length.
(from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
CROSS
(‎stauros‎, "a cross," "the crucifixion"; ‎skolops‎, "a stake," "a pole"): The name is not found in the Old Testament. It is derived from the Latin word crux. In the Greek language it is ‎stauros‎, but sometimes we find the word ‎skolops ‎used as its Greek equivalent. The historical writers, who transferred the events of Roman history into the Greek language, make use of these two words. No word in human language has become more universally known than this word, and that because all of the history of the world since the death of Christ has been measured by the distance which separates events from it. The symbol and principal content of the Christian religion and of Christian civilization is found in this one word. (from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[derbysr]

Lets see History of the Cross from two books : Jewish Author
BOOK XVIII
CONTAINING THE INTERVAL OF THIRTY-TWO YEARS.
FROM THE BANISHMENT OF ARCHELUS TO THE DEPARTURE FROM BABYLON.
§14 [18.14]
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; 10 as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

In the O.T. §36 [11.36] 4. Some time after this [two eunuchs], Bigthan and Teresh, plotted against the king; and Barnabazus, the servant of one of the eunuchs, being by birth a Jew, was acquainted with their conspiracy, and discovered it to the queen's uncle; and Mordecai, by the means of Esther, made the conspirators known to the king. This troubled the king; but he discovered the truth, and hanged the eunuchs upon a cross, while at that time he gave no reward ]: to Mordecai, who had been the occasion of his preservation. He only bid the scribes to set down his name in the records, and bid him stay in the palace, as an intimate friend of the king.
MORDECAI Lord Arthur Hervey has suggested the identification of Mordecai with Matacas, or Natacas, the powerful favorite and minister of Xerxes who is spoken of by Ctesias, the Greek historian. Few have done more to earn a nation's lasting gratitude than Mordecai, to whom, under God, the Jewish people owe their preservation.
WORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS:
The Wars of the Jews OR
THE HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM
Translated by
William Whiston
Nor did he fail of his hope; for he commanded them to set up a cross, as if he were just going to hang Eleazar upon it immediately; the sight of this occasioned a sore grief among those that were in the citadel, and they groaned vehemently, and cried out that they could not bear to see him thus destroyed. Whereupon Eleazar besought them not to disregard him, now he was going to suffer a most miserable death, and exhorted them to save themselves, by yielding to the Roman power and good fortune, since all other people were now conquered by them. These men were greatly moved with what he said, there being also many within the city that interceded for him, because he was of an eminent and very numerous family; so they now yielded to their passion of commiseration, contrary to their usual custom. :)

[RoBoTeq]

Derbydude;;;stop! Stop posting cut and paste references to sources that simply mistranslated the ancient words. For crying out loud, that quote about Jesus from the writings of Josephus has been discredited by most scholars for years for having been added to Josephus's writings in the sixth century A.D.

It doesn't matter what the instrument of destruction was, all that matters is that Jesus was killed, died, ascended into Heaven and was resurrected.

The unconvoluted point of this thread is that icons become more important then faith. Everyone of you who has gotten upset over this stupid sculpture has proven just that. We have become worshippers of icons, just like the Pagans. We are putting idols up for worship just as Aaron put up the golden calf. This is something that we have been explicity instructed not to do. Icons can be used against us, our faith never can.