Calpurnpiso and I might make a fine tag team over Crucifixion.

[calpurnpiso]

Ed-M wrote

Exactly right! Except for one thing: the Romans nailed or tied people to vertical gravity-racks and impaled them on the attached cruxes (lubricated impaling stakes also Penis-Christs) for purpose of execution. That's one form of live impalement and the other form is direct impalement a la Vlad the Impaler. And the Romans called both types of impalement "crucifixion." The stupid Christians changed all that. Now we have religious and BDSM enthusiats trying to replicate both The Crucifiction and Roman "crucifixion" based on erroneous information.

But they never nailed criminals to flat-plane crosses and lifted them up like gods!

Yup, they did. It is depicted in Trajan Column. ChristPschotics fail to see, due to the ignorance induced psychosis, that Vlad the Impaler was a defender of the faith. The church had supported his father in creating an organization, after the Crusades, not unlike the Jesuits or Inquisition called the Orden of the Dragon ( Dracul) to fight the Muslims and Jews.
The ChristPsychotic retards fighting among each other on the "nature" of Zombie Jesus & who was the true POPE ( Rome or Constantinople) became divided & Mehmed Celebi ( il Fatih=conqueror) the 18 yr old son of Murad conquered Constantinople may 11, 1453. Killing the last ChristPsychotic emperor whose name was also Constantine XI.
many do not realize Islam PSychotic are hundred time more tolerant that Christians as long as they are NOT invaded & TOLD they MUST change their religion.

Mehmed II was incredibly tolerant, his physician was an Italian JEW, Giacopo de Gaeta. He allowed Christians, Jews and others to worship FREELY ( in the tradition of Salah Al Dihn). During this time the plague had depopulated the city.
Mehmed after defeating also the CHRISTIAN armies of Vlad Tepish ( Dracula) demanded as ransom his handsome younger brother RADU, who became a Muslim & the favorite boytoy of Mehmed II. Radu drove Mehmed insane with his intelligence & beauty.

it is believed ChristPsychotic Dracula ate part of the flesh of his victims. Ahh Christian love to drink & eat blood...

[Ed-M]

psychodiva wrote

my suspicious brain is telling me that cal got him over here deliberately

Actually, no.

One of these days he'll be whaling on me!

[calpurnpiso]

Ed-M wrote

Actually, no.

One of these days he'll be whaling on me!

What kind of "impaling" harpoon do you like?
FYI there are a lot of AINO here ( atheist in name only)...and if one likes to go fishing thy always bite, specially when calling christians or other crazy people of faith. Psychotics...

[Ed-M]

calpurnpiso wrote

Yup, they did.

And if Mel Gibson portrayed what they did to people accurately in The Passion of the Christ, it would be rated NC-17 due to nudity and "sodomy" with an inanimate object.

Academics have known about this since the 19th Century before they found the epigraphic evidence, but the Christians have buried it under the rug. Martin Hengel in his Crucifixion work describes eveything except the 'seat' of the 'cross' but referred his German readers to a 19th Century book, Das Kreuz und der Kreuzigang by Hermann Fulda. Fulda made it obvious that this 'seat' was meant to impale. And Hengel did mention pflock - stake in German - but it was translated into English as 'peg.' So now Christians here are allowing for a horizontal peg in their concept of crucifixion! Go figure.

It is depicted in Trajan Column.

Then how come only heads on pikes? That's actually the end result of the Roman punishment of beheading. Severed head on pike. Depicting live impalement (direct or the racked aerial kind) was just too obscene for the Romans to depict on their monuments so the epigraphic evidence is found in ancient graffiti.

The Romans were always complaining the Enemies they were fighting against would impale captured Roman soldiers and civilians, alive. So beheading the enemy POWs before placing their heads on pikes facing the enemy would be good wartime PR in my estimation. Shows the enemy the Romans aren't as cruel as they are. Until they find the Romans practiced both Direct and Racked Aerial Impalement! In other words, crucifixion. But by the Romans' definition. Not ours.

[Ed-M]

Kate wrote

Ed, please, as a courtesy to those of us who do not wish to see Cal's screeds, please, please, refrain from quoting him. If you must address something in particular, please, please just cut that bit.

Please.

Oakalee doakalee!

[calpurnpiso]

Ed-M wrote

And if Mel Gibson portrayed what they did to people accurately in The Passion of the Christ, it would be rated NC-17 due to nudity and "sodomy" with an inanimate object.

Academics have known about this since the 19th Century before they found the epigraphic evidence, but the Christians have buried it under the rug. Martin Hengel in his Crucifixion work describes eveything except the 'seat' of the 'cross' but referred his German readers to a 19th Century book, Das Kreuz und der Kreuzigang by Hermann Fulda. Fulda made it obvious that this 'seat' was meant to impale. And Hengel did mention pflock - stake in German - but it was translated into English as 'peg.' So now Christians here are allowing for a horizontal peg in their concept of crucifixion! Go figure.



Then how come only heads on pikes? That's actually the end result of the Roman punishment of beheading. Severed head on pike. Depicting live impalement (direct or the racked aerial kind) was just too obscene for the Romans to depict on their monuments so the epigraphic evidence is found in ancient graffiti.

The Romans were always complaining the Enemies they were fighting against would impale captured Roman soldiers and civilians, alive. So beheading the enemy POWs before placing their heads on pikes facing the enemy would be good wartime PR in my estimation. Shows the enemy the Romans aren't as cruel as they are. Until they find the Romans practiced both Direct and Racked Aerial Impalement! In other words, crucifixion. But by the Romans' definition. Not ours.

Well in Trajan's column it is suggested if one knows how to read the personification of things and epigrapy. But you're correct. Also do not forget the penis of leader since the Egyptian pharoahs was an organ of adoration & veneration. It was compared to the obelisk which Son of God Augustus brought to Rome.
yes, custom of Heads on PIkes ought to be brought back to deal with children rapists.
I think the problem was misinterpretion of words like impaling crucifying is due to Boustraphedon. The earliest form of Latin & Greek writing was from left to right then right to left with mirror letters ( as in Russian brought to those folks in the 9th Century by Cristophrenic monks Cyril & Methodius send by Constantinople to infect the pagan Russ)

the origin of the cirillic alphabet....poor Russ. Christophrenia descended upon them like the plague..

[Ed-M]

calpurnpiso wrote

What kind of "impaling" harpoon do you like?

One that's integral to a living person in my area, "sweetie." How would you like it if I said "In cruce figarus" at ye?

FYI there are a lot of AINO here ( atheist in name only)...and if one likes to go fishing thy always bite, specially when calling christians or other crazy people of faith. Psychotics...

So you claim. Let me figure that out on my own, whether what you say is true or not. Those who truly AINO will eventually relapse into religious psychosis like Ex-Athiest who is known to be called a fuckwit and a thick trolling cunt!

[Ed-M]

calpurnpiso wrote

I think the problem was misinterpretion of words like impaling crucifying is due to Boustraphedon.

Well, ye can't hide ancient non-Christian Graffiti like the Palatine Hill Graffito Blasphemo, the Puzzuoli Graffito, the In Cruce Figarus Graffito and the Vivat Crux Graffito. The first was a mockery of The Crucifiction, all four were rude obscenities (the latter three especially). The first, second and fourth are pictograms so one can't hide those behind the concept of Boustraphedon! And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Roman youths yelled "In cruce figarus" at each other whilst flashing the bracchia macra (Up Yours sign). Like you said, figure it out and connect the dots.

The earliest form of Latin & Greek writing was from left to right then right to left with mirror letters ( as in Russian brought to those folks in the 9th Century by Cristophrenic monks Cyril & Methodius send by Constantinople to infect the pagan Russ)

the origin of the cirillic [sic] alphabet....[yada yada yada]..

"Earliest forms...." Which means the Greeks and Latins must have quickly abandoned it because it was such an eyeache to read! And what does the Cyrillic Alphabet have anything to do with this???

[Ed-M]

Well we've already gotten into a catfight....

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...945#post625945

[Smellyoldgit]

We had noticed - and I've taken the liberty of shifting it over here.
It's a shame one can't put tediously dull, entire threads on ignore.

[psychodiva]

can we not get a button wherein that is possible? at least I know which thread to ignore now tho- thanks Smelly - and hopefully they will keep each other busy

[Ed-M]

Cal hasn't come back, it appears I've won the catfight, so now I feel free to talk about other things!

[calpurnpiso]

Ed-M wrote

Well, ye can't hide ancient non-Christian Graffiti like the Palatine Hill Graffito Blasphemo, the Puzzuoli Graffito, the In Cruce Figarus Graffito and the Vivat Crux Graffito. The first was a mockery of The Crucifiction, all four were rude obscenities (the latter three especially). The first, second and fourth are pictograms so one can't hide those behind the concept of Boustraphedon! And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Roman youths yelled "In cruce figarus" at each other whilst flashing the bracchia macra (Up Yours sign). Like you said, figure it out and connect the dots.
"Earliest forms...." Which means the Greeks and Latins must have quickly abandoned it because it was such an eyeache to read! And what does the Cyrillic Alphabet have anything to do with this???

I agree but you ought to put yourself in the shoes of an ancient man and learn the art of ancient metaphores & epigraphy. The fact there is NO DEPICTION of Crucifixion as a from of torture in the VICTORY WAR MEMORIAL columns of Trajan & MArcus Aurelius speak volumes. Find me ONE example of crucifixion in ANY ancient Roman monuments & I SHUT UP.

If I leave you a note before you come over to my house with a little drawing of a dick and a bunch of ZZZ which says:
"I went over to see a man about a horse, and then I'm going to catch some zzz, so come over tonight."

A catastrophe occurs, everything is buried. 2000 years later two archaeologist find the note
one argues that it definitively means that the person that wrote the note was going to catch some zebras and training them so he could ride them. Do you think he was right?

Words, as well as epigraphy, always CHANGE and EVOLVED, something you do not seem to understand.I suggest you go and see the monuments at Naqsh-e Rostam ( ca 300bce) DESCRIBE them, then explain what is their relation to the Trajan column & crucifixion also
their relation to NArseh's Paikuli monument, the Ara Pacis Augustae, the Swastika, the Tifillin, Cybele & the Kaaba in Mecca.

[Ed-M]

calpurnpiso wrote

Find me ONE example of crucifixion in ANY ancient Roman monuments & I SHUT UP.

And why should we expect the ancient Romans to include instances of crucifixion on their war memorials when we NEVER put on OUR war memorials examples of execution by hanging on the gallows, lynching, firing squad, Ole Sparky (electric chair), gas chamber or lethal injection guerney? The closest you'll get from Trajan's Column is where one Roman soldier frogmarches two Dacians away whilst others build some sort of platform and maybe even the crosses themselves! Of course, none of the crosses are fully assembled nor are their main uprights posted....



THen there's the famous road construction scene where the soldiers are knocking down trees and filling with gravel, next to a city wall with two severed heads-on-pikes. Are we supposed to read crucifixion between the felling of trees and the displaying of heads????



I'm sure the only obvious examples of crucifixion, a form of impalement, that don't have to be reinterpretated and where one doesn't have to read between the lines are the graffiti! In my opinion, they are the big guns of this so-called debate. And some are utterly obscene!!!! Don't make me use them.

CalpurnPiso wrote

If I leave you a note before you come over to my house with a little drawing of a dick and a bunch of ZZZ which says:
"I went over to see a man about a horse, and then I'm going to catch some zzz, so come over tonight.".... 2000 years later two archaeologist [sic] find the note.
One argues that it definitively means that the person that wrote the note was going to catch some zebras and training them so he could ride them. Do you think he was right?

I feel right pissed-on with that bit of hypothetical rubbish!

CalpurnPiso wrote

Words, as well as epigraphy, always CHANGE and EVOLVED [sic].... I suggest you go and see the monuments at Naqsh-e Rostam ( ca 300bce) DESCRIBE them, then explain what is their relation to the Trajan column....

Oh, for the love of the non-existent god! I am fully well aware that words change meaning and epigraphy MIGHT change meaning (although some are too bloody obvious). That's why we have archaeologists, linguists and other academics to interpret these things.

EXAMPLE: crux: in Latin: tow-pole ---> impaling stake ---> torture or inner torment --> the impaling part of the male cross and Priapus' dick ---> the erect male cross, most humiliating torture-execution device ever invented ---> after 438 ce the neutered cross ---> crux interpretum ---> in English: the central, critical or vexing point of a matter or problem.

I know exactly what and where Naqsh-e Rostam is, what it looks like and all the rest. And it has two gigantic votive crosses carved into the hillside at its Achaemenid Tombs. And elsewhere it shows the supplication of Roman Emperor Valerian who was defeated by Shapur I. Relation to Trajan's Column? They depict war victories and whereas one depicts Roman victory, a part of the other depicts a Roman defeat. And both definitely have crosses - votive crosses at the one, Tropaea at the other!

And I know bloody well that neither of them nor any other war monument will show simple nailing to crosses, simple impalement through the person, or a combination of both! As far as I know, the Romans are the only ones that showed an example of one of their death penalties, the most "humane" and "sanitized" one - beheading - on a war monument and even then they only showed the end result!

We don't show Ole Sparky on the Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors' Monument, now do we?

[Ed-M]

Or what's really going on in that first picture in the immediate post above is the Romans are building some sort of platform or a siege ramp viaduct. Because after some more study, I've figured that's what it really looks like.