Umm guys... Are we really sure that Jesus died on a cross..?
The Bible generally uses the Greek word stauros when referring to the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John 19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake”
Is anyone actually able to debunk this...???
He was crucified, this is documented not only by the bible, but also by Roman catalogers and historians. Even atheists admit yes, jesus was a dude that died on a cross.
Also the reason why jews are called kikes is because they refused to draw a cross
Do you have any... you know, proof?
Roman Records state it happend, as does the talmud. Are you calling the jews liars?
>Are you calling the jews liars?
*Cough*
Reminder that Jesus was a jew
Greek here, stavros means cross, it wouldn't be referred to as an upright stake
Jesus was a jew before satan started putting his dick in it.
iirc the way it's described implies that his arms were spread out and nailed down which is exactly what a roman crucifixion is.
Now, ask yourself: what is a cross?
It is an upright stake with a plank nailed across the top end for the arms.
A steak is generally seen as a straight piece of wood.
>Even atheists admit yes
You're lying. I don't believe in Jesus or his cross. Many people ask; "Does the scientifically impossible resurrection event mean that Jesus wasn't a real person?" The answer is Yes. Modern science and scholarship has proven Christianity to be totally fraudulent. Jesus is an example of an historically fake person. We can simply test for them by seeing whether they came in and out of existence by preposterous magical events. Especially "resurrection" is just as fake as thousands of Zombies rising out of their tombs and walking into Jerusalem. [ Matthew 27:52 ] Christfags believe this just because Matthew is a Jew, so he's truthful in witnessing resurrection.
>crucifying someone on a stick with no support for hands or legs
really nigga
Huh?
>memeflag
Opinion discarded, most historians agree that Jesus was a historic person.
I didn't say atheists believed he resurrected, I said the atheists believe he was a dude.
Pretty much every secular historian believes he was a real person at some point, I get that as an atheist, you are unable to understand anything you don't agree with, but get some reading comprehension.
Yes..?
Jesus wasn't even a real person, so what does it matter?
say hello to masonic disinfo
>He was crucified, this is documented not only by the bible, but also by Roman catalogers and historians.
Nonsense. The earliest attestations of a historical Jesus date to about 180AD.
And what the fuck is a "cataloger"?
What part of "the Romans were corrupt and worked alongside the pharisees, eventually poisoning the catholic church and thusly creating a huge schism in Christianity" don't you faggots comprehend?
Go bitch at the Vatican. Tell them to open the vault.
in terms of crucifixion and punishment during that time period, stavros was used as cross or t-shaped, not what this picture shows, this isn't a sound theological argument against christ's crucifixtion
Also, this.
The Bible also uses the Greek word xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.”
Visions given by Christ show him with the injured hands and feet
Jehovahs witnesses like to point this out. It doesn't really matter whether he was crucified on a cross or on a stick. To quibble over nonessential details detracts from the general message
Yeah good point, people also think he was crucified on a "Chi-Rho" cross which also would make sense, either way it doesn't really matter
As I said, the problem with your translation-based pedantry is that his arms were described as being spread apart.
>judeo-satanic ANGLO
Debunked
I can't wait until UK becomes Indian, anglos are a SUBHUMAN RACE
>To quibble over nonessential details detracts from the general message
I'd say if the person isn't executing the message correctly; wouldn't you start to doubt whoever was telling you this? Blindly jumping into a religion without asking questions is ridiculous.
Well we don't know how cross like it was other than it was two wooden planks affixed to each other. It may very well have looked more like a T. but I mean it was essentially a cross and the point was to be as painful as possible.
A steak is generally a really good cut of meat. Nigger, you can't even use the right English word. Why should we listen to your exegesis of Greek grammar?
Any question you want to ask or have asked has already been answered. Jumping into a Mongolian basketweaving forum asking theological questions is retarded, ask a Greek orthodox monk or a priest if you have questions about koine greek definitions
>I can't wait until UK becomes Indian, anglos are a SUBHUMAN RACE
Possibly true, but I'd rather be ruled by Indians than by a secret cabal of (((you know whos))), mate
Why did you have to manipulatively lead up to this reddit-tier internet atheist talking-point instead of just revealing it in your original post? Were you afraid of being rightfully regarded as a faggot?
Reminder that the word jew as it applies to the jewish rats today did not even exist in Jesus' time nor does it apply to him in the way that they have convinced you it does. Modern jews are a branch off from the old pre-Christ religion that became known later as Christianity. However by rejecting Christ, the very core of their religion, they turned away from their own God and replaced Him with Satan.
Then they retroactively called the pre-Christ Christanity as Judaism and named themselves Gods chosen people and good little goys like you eat it up and pretend to be ~pagan~ so you can feel special and superior while the Jews chalk you up as another soul claimed by their Master
>upright stake
They shoved it up Jesus’s big gay butt. He enjoyed it. Entire religion is for fags.
Because if I made all my points on one thread it would be a tl;dr. By doing it this way I’m able to come across more personal and get my point across so someone can debunk me. Lol
Part of the reason is that Crucifixion was a common way in Roman vassals to make examples of criminals and enemies of the empire. But as it says in the Gospel account, it was really the Saducees that tried him and got him Crucified.
The Romans used crucifixion extensively as a punishment so they knew how to extend suffering and thus provide a harsh warning to never rebel against Rome. A very gruesome billboard.
The arms nailed to the crossbar helped to ease body-weight pressure off of the torso so the victim can breathe (and live in agony longer). The spear thrust into the side of Jesus was to drain fluids that built up that was hindering breathing.
Jesus drank from a sponge filled with 'vinegar', probably posca, a sour wine with herbs that Roman soldiers drank. Probably not an act of compassion but to extend the 'show'...
The Romans always beat their prisoners in a very cruel way. The law of the Jews allowed them to beat men no more than 39 times.
The Roman law had no limit. When their prisoners fell down, the Romans picked them up. Then they began to beat them again. The prisoners' backs became like a field that a farmer has ploughed. Pieces of skin hung from their backs. The Romans had decided that Jesus must die. Now they beat him, by Roman law.
Isaiah 52:14—Everyone was afraid of how he looked. He did not even look human. Nobody would recognise him as a man.
>debunk
reddit.
>implying Jesus existed
Why is Yas Forums so obsessed with reddit. Lol
Stauros (σταυρός) means cross. There is no other translation.
What about this?