0
Usenet Posted 19 years ago
English in UK
Easter 2007 - Jesus, Myth of History or Son of God?
My name is Lorenzo Crescini. I am a Captain of the merchant Navy now on retirement.
When I was a secular missionary in an African leprosary, I wrote some Flashes on the Holy Gospels which helped a lot of people by giving them new trust and hope. You will find them in web site
www.lorenzocrescini.it/holygospels
E mail:
Here are the first three Flashes as an example
1. There is the historical proof the myth could not invent theCross . If the Cross roused a "social orror" by the heathens ,it caused a shocking religious dismay by the Jews. It is not a case that the first christians in order to avoid that the preaching might be jeopardised.,represented the Cross by an anchor ,a plough, a mast, a man praying with open arms.How can we think that this way of dying was put in the myth by the christians themselves ?
2. Should somebody tell us of having seen a dead person on the crossresuscitated, nobody would believe him. But if the same person stating that could also make miracles, then we would believe him. That happened to the Apostles who got the power of making miracles in order to be believed. Without that power, Christianity couldn't have been born.
3. Jesus says on the Cross: "My God ,My God ,why did You abandon me ?Such words might even shock the reader. Why should they have been written if they weren't true,then ?
When I was a secular missionary in an African leprosary, I wrote some Flashes on the Holy Gospels which helped a lot of people by giving them new trust and hope. You will find them in web site
www.lorenzocrescini.it/holygospels
E mail:
Here are the first three Flashes as an example
1. There is the historical proof the myth could not invent theCross . If the Cross roused a "social orror" by the heathens ,it caused a shocking religious dismay by the Jews. It is not a case that the first christians in order to avoid that the preaching might be jeopardised.,represented the Cross by an anchor ,a plough, a mast, a man praying with open arms.How can we think that this way of dying was put in the myth by the christians themselves ?
2. Should somebody tell us of having seen a dead person on the crossresuscitated, nobody would believe him. But if the same person stating that could also make miracles, then we would believe him. That happened to the Apostles who got the power of making miracles in order to be believed. Without that power, Christianity couldn't have been born.
3. Jesus says on the Cross: "My God ,My God ,why did You abandon me ?Such words might even shock the reader. Why should they have been written if they weren't true,then ?
Top answer
[nq:1]1. [/nq] The cross was the means of execution employed by the ancient Romans (among others). In that sense, it is equivalent to the gas chamber, electric chair, gallows, or firing squad.
- [nq:1]1.
- [/nq] The cross was the means of execution employed by the ancient Romans (among others).
- In that sense, it is equivalent to the gas chamber, electric chair, gallows, or firing squad.
- It does not need mythical invention.
- It was not the shape described in the myth however ...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
40 Answers
0
[nq:1]1. There is the historical proof the myth could not invent the Cross.[/nq]
The cross was the means of execution employed by the ancient Romans (among others). In that sense, it is equivalent to the gas chamber, electric chair, gallows, or firing squad. It does not need mythical invention. It was not the shape described in the myth however ... more like a T, so the extra part with 'inri'
The cross was the means of execution employed by the ancient Romans (among others). In that sense, it is equivalent to the gas chamber, electric chair, gallows, or firing squad. It does not need mythical invention. It was not the shape described in the myth however ... more like a T, so the extra part with 'inri'
00
[nq:2]1. There is the historical proof the myth could not invent the Cross.[/nq]
[nq:1]The cross was the means of execution employed by the ancient Romans (among others). In that sense, it is equivalent ... more like a T, so the extra part with 'inri' written on it could not have been affixed as described.[/nq]
But wasn't it quite usual for the crime to be written in the titulus? And often
[nq:1]The cross was the means of execution employed by the ancient Romans (among others). In that sense, it is equivalent ... more like a T, so the extra part with 'inri' written on it could not have been affixed as described.[/nq]
But wasn't it quite usual for the crime to be written in the titulus? And often
00
[nq:2]The cross was the means of execution employed by the ... written on it could not have been affixed as described.[/nq]
[nq:1]But wasn't it quite usual for the crime to be written in the titulus? And often abbreviated? In this case ... fluid in the thoracic cavity; the piercing by Longinus relieved the pressure rather than being any sort of death blow.[/nq]
Belief being a personal matt
[nq:1]But wasn't it quite usual for the crime to be written in the titulus? And often abbreviated? In this case ... fluid in the thoracic cavity; the piercing by Longinus relieved the pressure rather than being any sort of death blow.[/nq]
Belief being a personal matt
00
(Snip)
[nq:2]And wasn't the so-called "cross" often just a plain upright ... - with both wrists nailed to it above the head?[/nq]
(Snip)
[nq:1]Belief being a personal matter, as it is, and not to detract from either of your follow-up points, if the ... involved? This is basic etymology, surely, or are these not words in the current lexicon? Just figeres of speech then?[/nq]
Latin '
[nq:2]And wasn't the so-called "cross" often just a plain upright ... - with both wrists nailed to it above the head?[/nq]
(Snip)
[nq:1]Belief being a personal matter, as it is, and not to detract from either of your follow-up points, if the ... involved? This is basic etymology, surely, or are these not words in the current lexicon? Just figeres of speech then?[/nq]
Latin '
00
[nq:1]Belief being a personal matter, as it is, and not to detract from either of your follow-up points[/nq]
You didn't.
[nq:1]if the cross wasn't actually a cross then why do we have the word "cruciform", derived from Latin and meaning "a cross"? And why would we end up with the term "crucifixion" if no cross was involved?[/nq]
The word cruciform does indeed derive from the Latin word
You didn't.
[nq:1]if the cross wasn't actually a cross then why do we have the word "cruciform", derived from Latin and meaning "a cross"? And why would we end up with the term "crucifixion" if no cross was involved?[/nq]
The word cruciform does indeed derive from the Latin word
00
[nq:2]Belief being a personal matter, as it is, and not to detract from either of your follow-up points[/nq]
[nq:1]You didn't.[/nq]
Ah, extracts.
[nq:2]if the cross wasn't actually a cross then why do ... up with the term "crucifixion" if no cross was involved?[/nq]
[nq:1]The word cruciform does indeed derive from the Latin word meaning a cross (note: 'a' cross, not 'the' cross).[/
[nq:1]You didn't.[/nq]
Ah, extracts.
[nq:2]if the cross wasn't actually a cross then why do ... up with the term "crucifixion" if no cross was involved?[/nq]
[nq:1]The word cruciform does indeed derive from the Latin word meaning a cross (note: 'a' cross, not 'the' cross).[/
00
[nq:1]So, it is the Ancient Picts from whom we get the language of Latin then? Or some other Pagan people? ... seems somewhat flawed if it's a Latin word originally in that it was a term they coined in the first place.[/nq]
Now you are being silly (-:
The Latin term for nailing people to lumps of tree is crucifixion. No Picts, old or young, are, or were, involved.
The Romans copied the
Now you are being silly (-:
The Latin term for nailing people to lumps of tree is crucifixion. No Picts, old or young, are, or were, involved.
The Romans copied the
00
0
[nq:1]The Romans copied the PROCESS of crucifixion from other cultures and indeed coined that word to describe that process.[/nq]
Not quite. It's just that we now use a Latin-derived word for it. We could just as easily have ripped a word from another language (English is English, after all).
But this is an extremely dull discussion; best left for dead.
Not quite. It's just that we now use a Latin-derived word for it. We could just as easily have ripped a word from another language (English is English, after all).
But this is an extremely dull discussion; best left for dead.
00
[nq:2]The Romans copied the PROCESS of crucifixion from other cultures and indeed coined that word to describe that process.[/nq]
[nq:1]Not quite. It's just that we now use a Latin-derived word for it. We could just as easily have ripped a word from another language (English is English, after all). But this is an extremely dull discussion; best left for dead.[/nq]
Oh, I dunno...a little re
[nq:1]Not quite. It's just that we now use a Latin-derived word for it. We could just as easily have ripped a word from another language (English is English, after all). But this is an extremely dull discussion; best left for dead.[/nq]
Oh, I dunno...a little re
0
Related Questions