On Sundays episode the camera panned past a man who had beeen crucified. I noticed that he was on a Pole, and not a cross. Is that because Christianity had not been introduced yet? I know it's only tv (It's not tv, it's HBO)...Anyone into that series?
ROME on HBO
by Sasha 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
lonelysheep
I love "Rome"!
And yes, I noticed that pole and thought the same thing!
-
pratt1
I noticed that as well. I also thought they showed a woman on a pole as well.
I think the series is great, but I read somewhere that these are the last 12 episodes, apparently it is very expensive to produce.
I am sure that it is heavily fictionalized, but its interesting to see crooked politics, useless wars and rampant crime has been going on for centuries.
Appartently we have learned nothing from the past. we just repeat it.
-
Warlock
I am sure that it is heavily fictionalized, but its interesting to see crooked politics, useless wars and rampant crime has been going on for centuries.
pratt1,
Does that suprise you?
Warlock
-
pratt1
No I am not surprised, just interesting.
-
AuldSoul
Crux simplex was a kind of cross used for crucifixion. It was an upright pole. Of course, such a crucifixion would not require "nails" in the hands. So, whatever kind Jesus was crucified on it was certainly not a crux simplex according to the Bible account.
-
Doug Mason
In the Appendix to their 1950 NWT NT (pages 768-771), 1969 Interlinear (pages 1155-1157) and the 1971 Large Print edition (pages 1360-1361), the WTS cites a rare 16th century book by the Catholic Scholar Justus Lipsius. They show a picture from Lipsius' book, showing a man suspended on a single stake. The WTS wrote that this was the manner employed by the Romans with Christ.
Fortunately for me, our library has a copy of that rare book and I obtained a photocopy of the whole chapter. The book shows any number of methods (St Andrews Cross, upside down, conventional cross with the victim upside down and feet spread on the cross beam, etc., etc.).
Interestingly, after conducting his research, Lipsius concluded that they used a cross with a cross arm, as conventionally shown.
If this is correct, and an archaeological find in 1968 suggests it could be so, the nails would have been inserted into the wrists or lower arm, not the hands, since the nails would have been ripped out under the victim's weight. On the 1968 archaeological find, the feet were also tied to the upright and nailed to it.
If anyone is keen to make a scan of the pages from the old book and make it available on the www, I can provide a photocopy of the pages. It includes a translation of some of the Latin text. There are probably 60 pages, or thereabouts.
If the WTS deliberately misrepresents what Justus Lipsius wrote on a non-issue, what does it do when the issue does matter?
Doug -
TD
Was this the open pit mine / slave camp scene in Testudo et Lepus?
-
Doug Mason
You ask: "Is that because Christianity had not been introduced yet?"
The implement used by the Romans to kill their victims has nothing to do with Christianity. It was a Roman implement, whatever the shape.
BTW, the first Christians were a small Jewish sect.
Doug -
AuldSoul
Doug,
Among the Jews of the time the custom was to "wash their hands up to the elbows." We don't think of hands as extending to the elbow.
"Hands" did not necessarily mean from the wrists to the longest fingertips. The point I was making related to the plurality of puncturing implements. The print of the nails in his hands, plural, would only have been possible with a cross configuration other than the crux simplex, the upright stake, the one JWs promote as the correct implement of crucifixion.
If nails (plural) were used in his hands (plural) his hands must have been apart from one another.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul