I got a negative vote for a blank post again, lol. I posted a painting depicting the crucifixion with a skull below but apparently the formatting did not work. Anyway, feel free to disagree but disagreeing with a blank post is a bit strange.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
7
Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?
by peacefulpete ini'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.
the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".
so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?
-
-
-
7
Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?
by peacefulpete ini'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.
the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".
so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?
-
-
peacefulpete
Sorry for the poor writing again and I don't know why but my brain always conflates Justin with Jerome. What I said above about Justin was from Jerome. Geez my brain....
Touchofgrey....yep in some Rabbinic legend Melchizedek aka Shem (yes, they are linked in many legends) was given the skull for burial in the 'navel' of the world Jerusalem. In some legends the rest of the bones were distributed to other parts. And yes, by the time of Jerome the very physical phenomenon of blood reaching to the skull of Adam was popular. He objected , preferring the legend that Adam was buried in Hebron that was then circulating. Anyway, Jerome had issues with the Jerusalem church and pilgrimages to 'sacred' sites. That may explain his preference for the Hebron legend. (PDF) Constructing the Sacred in Late Antiquity: Jerome as a Guide for Christian Identity
There is suggestive evidence that the Hebron legend was actually created to refute the Christian sacred site that connected Adam with Jesus. So that might suggest the Jerusalem burial legend predates the Hebron legend but who knows.
Since the distribution of the Gospels there have been various theories about the meaning. Jerome said it was because of skulls lying about, some thought that a 'round' bump of ground, using an extended etymology might have been involved. Both are unlikely. Interestingly Epiphanius specifically denied the latter theory.: There is nothing to be seen on the place resembling this name; for it is not situated upon a height that it should be called (the place) of a skull, answering to the place of the head in the human body." He felt the 'place of the skull' was a reference to the skull of Adam.
The idea that some stone structure that resembled a skull shape with eyes etc. is a very recent 19th century fantasy. The idea that a modern feature could be the site becomes absurd when we realize the limestone was actively quarried in the first century and the soft limestone erodes rather quickly. I compared pictures of a waterfall we saw on our honeymoon with a recent one and in just a few decades the rocks have eroded/changed significantly. Imagining a limestone formation would be unchanged for 2000 years is just silly.
The site of the Temple of Venus by Hadrian famously was rebuilt as a Christian church now called the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by Constantine. And below it was created/discovered the Chapel of Adam. The religious history of the site is long and complicated, but briefly said, the legends surrounding a 15' bump of rock encased in glass inside the reconstructed church led to its being venerated by billions. In reality the bump was almost certainly a leftover from quarrying due to fissures in it, or as some suggest made (outside originally) when the church was built.
The earliest, and IMO the best, 2nd/3rd century explanation was rather that the site was that of the skull of Adam. Whether there actually was a site connected with that legend by ancient Jews is unknown. If there was, it might explain Hadrian's choice to locate his Temple to Venus there as part of his campaign to eradicate Judean Judaism. If there was only a legend and no sacred site designated by Jews, the Markan writer could simply have been linking his story with the legend literarily and had no specific geographic place in mind. This seems most likely given the writer's distance temporarily and geographically from the story's setting. Interestingly it appears there was no designated place for executions, which would have freed the Markan writer to be creative. Regardless, a century or two later the site of Hadrian's temple was clearly linked with both Adam and Jesus by Christians which is why Constantine built his Christian church there.
-
7
Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?
by peacefulpete ini'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.
the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".
so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?
-
-
-
7
Place of a Skull...Whose Skull?
by peacefulpete ini'll just shoot this short comment that i found interesting.
the gospel of mark at 15:22 says: then they brought him to the place golgotha, which is translated, place of a/the skull (singular noun).. it might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull".
so, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more christological meaning?
-
-
peacefulpete
I'll just shoot this short comment that I found interesting. The Gospel of Mark at 15:22 says: Then they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a/the Skull (singular noun).
It might be surprising to learn there is no ancient record of any topographical location called "place of the skull". So, is that because of loss of information or is it suggestive that the 'place of the skull' had more Christological meaning?
Interestingly the decades later writer of Luke (23:33) seems to assume "The Skull" was a geographical toponym, not that the location was the place OF the Skull as it reads in his sources Mark and Matthew. The difference might seem subtle, but the change follows a certain logic I'll mention later.
Many modern attempts to interpret the Gospels have resulted in a couple basic theories, one is that the skulls of executed people lay about the site (this ignores Jewish prohibitions and the singular noun 'skull'). The most popular idea is that the site (assumed to be a mount/hill) had some resemblance to a skull (nothing in Gospels suggest a hill or a formation looking like a skull). This inspired 19th century folks to look at the eroding and actively quarried limestone rocks until they found one that to some from a certain angle kind of looks like a skull to sell souvenirs at.
A more interesting answer comes from ancient sources Origen, Basil of Seleucia, Justin, Eusebius, and others. The skull was Adam's, and it was in Origen's day believed buried beneath the very location Jesus was crucified. Origen cites "Hebraic" tradition that Adam or at least his head was buried by Jerusalem and this was the reason it was called the place of the skull (Golgotha). The 'garden' allusion introduced by the writer of John to the story (and a new tomb never used), carry similar Christological meaning in reference to Adam the first man who left the garden being redeemed by the second Adam. Note that the site of the Temple to Venus by Hadrian at the present site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher/was in an effort to eradicate anything Jewish. Later 4th century Christians assumed Hadrian's motive to the temple was to conceal the site of the crucifixion. This seems quite unlikely, Christianity was not in any way a threat to Hadrian whereas the Bar Kochba rebellion cost hundreds of thousands of lives. If there was any motivation for the location of the Temple, apart from practical logistical ones, the desire to destroy all things Jewish had to be greater.
Most modern historical Jesus scholarship today assumes the enigmatic "Place of the Skull" in Mark inspired Christological explanations not intended by the author. For many the idea appears too fictional/legendary. This demonstrates a naive historicity bias IMO. They correctly argue that no pre-Christian Jewish written version of the legend is extant today and therefore it is best to assume Origen and others were making up the existence of Jewish legends about the skull for Christian reasons. While that is certainly possible, as it was common, that ought not be assumed. It is very relevant that there are later written Jewish mentions of such legends (and many others) that apparently were unfortunately only oral traditions for centuries. Also, Justin, as it now reads (has contradictory responses), but in one location he denies Adam's skull was in Jerusalem as many believed, preferring another (also nonextant) Hebrew tradition that he was buried in Hebron. Why assume the legend Justin prefers, to be truly ancient Jewish, but not the legend Origen and others said was?
The popularity of the link between Adam's skull and Jesus' crucifixion endured through the centuries even today Orthodox Christian's place importance upon it. The next time you see an example of the countless depictions of the crucifixion with a skull placed at the base of the cross, you now know the skull was Adam's.
Back to Luke, notice the writer adjusted his source in changing 'place of the skull to 'Skull' altering the possible meaning.
Why might this have happened? The writer of Luke is seen repeatedly, by his omissions and rewrites of his sources, to have not been comfortable with the death of Jesus having ransom value but rather as a great tragedy inspiring repentance and hence forgiveness. Did Luke Have a Doctrine of the Atonement? Mailbag September 24, 2017 - The Bart Ehrman Blog This would suggest to me that a possible explanation for his adjusting the name of the site of the crucifixion is that he did not share the Jesus=Adam Christology.
-
67
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
by Sea Breeze inback when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
-
-
peacefulpete
I love dinosaur soft tissue!
-
16
From** A**Friend!**2025**Regional**Convention**Videos!
by Atlantis inif you wish to download these videos for "free", then click on (slow download) when you get to the site.
the entire file folder is 8 gigabytes and will take about an hour to fully download in the slow download mode.
there is not much time left.. *****************.
-
-
peacefulpete
Blondie my friend...the question still remains. Why? Of course, anyone is free to watch anything they wish but why would recovering and former JWs want to expose themselves to hours of manipulative propaganda. It's just not healthy. It's full of emotional triggers and subtle distortions of fact. My advice to anyone, is not to needlessly put yourself through it.
-
16
From** A**Friend!**2025**Regional**Convention**Videos!
by Atlantis inif you wish to download these videos for "free", then click on (slow download) when you get to the site.
the entire file folder is 8 gigabytes and will take about an hour to fully download in the slow download mode.
there is not much time left.. *****************.
-
-
peacefulpete
Why would we want to watch that?
-
22
Even after many years out, why can't you stop thinking about them.
by liam inthere is a lot of exjws who have been out 10-20-30-50 years, but for some reason, when they see a group of jehovah's witnesses, sitting by their carts, drinking coffee, scrolling through phones, laughing, something inside happens.
most can't explain it.
some say it makes their blood boil.
-
-
peacefulpete
JohnR1975 is on to something. For those who understood what was happening and left on their own accord, seem to more quickly deal with emotional aspects. For others for whom it the leaving was accompanied with a sense of powerlessness, it lingers far longer. I personally never felt anything like hate. I felt relief, I felt sympathy, I felt irritation with some overzealous individuals. Having researched religion, not just mine, gave me perspective. If I were to hate everyone who believed in myths and stories, I'd become a hater of mankind.
As far as 'thinking about them' after decades out. It has been a useful experience, we've helped a number of people similarly abused by other religions, much of it crosses over. Also,I have hoped that a sober approach to studying the ancient religion of Jews and Christians has been of value for others. This site has helped many, as long as we don't use it as a weapon to stir hate or as a megaphone for divisive politics, it will continue to help many more.
-
14
Letter of Disassociation to Former Religions / Baptism Questions ?
by HereIam60 inthis was prompted by some comments in another thread, but since it was somewhat "off" the original topic, i'm posting/asking seperately.... i was born in 1960, and baptized as a infant in a catholic church.
obviously i have no personal memory of this, and only know, because i was told, and we had a family photo of my parents holding me before the baptismal font while the priest prepared to do the sprinkling.
i was taken probably no more than 3 times to the catholic church in my early childhood and had no clue as to what was going on.. from the ages of 10 to 12 i attended a methodist sunday school, rarely the actual church service, but sang with the class in an annual christmas presentation in the church.. in the 1980s, studying with jehovah's witnesses, and considering baptism, i was told i had to write a letter to any religious group i had previously been involved with, stating i no longer wished any contact, wanted to be removed from their membership lists and witnessing as to why...(separation from satan's world, false religion, babylon etc.).
-
-
peacefulpete
You will need to be sure to cancel your candle-of-the-month subscription as well. Also renounce the Lost Sock Rescue Society and cut off all contact with Over Thinkers Anonymous.
-
32
A gospel of LOVE or a gospel of HATE?
by JanH in" (the watchtower, 10/1 1961, p. 596; bold added).
" (the watchtower, 11/15 1952, p. 703; bold added).
" (the watchtower, 10/1 1952, p. 599; bold added).
-
-
peacefulpete
Humans are typically pretty decent without religion or with. (I know you think that means a God made them) However ideologically driven movements/religions redefine morality in the interest of the group, not the greater peace of society.
