How did they remove the nails ?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, May 14, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,688
    On my post I explained on how to remove nails in a gentle way, It seems you don't want to listen, You used crowbar, in my view you are an ignorant man with ill purpose. I told you , split the wood along the line of the nail.
    Your experiment and your conclusion is to justify your mind . your experiment was to make a mess and so you did.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,688
    Look this man was member of higher society and a wealthy man , Do you really think he went by himself to bring the body down , remember when the two women went next day , they asked among them self who will roll away the stone, that means it was necessary more than one person, What you did in your experiment is your mind, not like other would do , and others think , your experiment again was to justify your position.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,571
    He took the body down from Golgotha. It doesn't say he took it down from the cross.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,571
    Why would the Romans care about damaging the flesh? They had just finished torturing Him to death.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,442
    Uh - the body was pretty damaged by that time.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,643
    Ahaha. The Turing Shroud.

    It is infinitely long and, despite being very simple, can simulate any religious symbol that exists.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    21,734
    *Speechless*..

    A few things about this... Well, aside from the visual I just had of you nailing a chicken carcass to a cross being just, well, wrong.. No, really, why? I get it, in the interest of science and whatnot, but really, why?

    A chicken carcass and 6 inch nails?

    Scale and whatnot. The fact that chicken has very thin skin compared to human skin and 6 inch long nails.. I should not have to explain just why or how this was overkill and how the 6 inch nail would shred chicken meat..

    Not surprised it was a mess. 6 inch nail and chicken carcass is not a good mix. You would have been better trying it with something like a pig trotter, for example. *Sigh* I can't believe I am even saying this!

    Secondly, why do you believe the Romans or those who removed his body would have been so careful? Ever considered that they may have just ripped his limbs off the nail, as in had the head of the nail go right through the fresh? I don't think neatness or pretty wounds were an issue back then. Or the nails may have been left in the skin? I will come to this one shortly.. I get removing them from the wood is the issue, but there are ways to wedge nails out of timber and I doubt they would have cared if it shredded the skin of the victim. For all we know, they might have hacked his arms and legs and left the bits nailed on the stake or cross..

    Thirdly, again, I cannot believe I am having this discussion when I am an atheist. Again.. *Sigh*..

    What.. the.. hell?

    Your neighbours must love you!

    Crucifixions in Roman times weren't using 4x6.

    They also had various forms of crucifixion, from using just one post, to the cross shape that Christians most commonly identify with, to nail people to walls, sometimes on one beam upright or upside down.

    If you want to look at the story of Christ, then you need to consider archaeological finds (well, "find", there has been only one, I believe) of other crucifixions by Romans. For example (and this refers to leaving the nail in that I referred to above):

    In 1968, archaeologists discovered at Giv'at ha-Mivtar in northeast Jerusalem the remains of one Jehohanan, who had been crucified in the 1st century. The remains included a heel bone with a nail driven through it from the side. The tip of the nail was bent, perhaps because of striking a knot in the upright beam, which prevented it being extracted from the foot. A first inaccurate account of the length of the nail led some to believe that it had been driven through both heels, suggesting that the man had been placed in a sort of sidesaddle position, but the true length of the nail, 11.5 cm (4.53 inches), suggests instead that in this case of crucifixion the heels were nailed to opposite sides of the upright.[40][41][42] The skeleton from Giv'at ha-Mivtar is currently the only recovered example of ancient crucifixion in the archaeological record.[43]


    And you used a 6 inch nail with a chicken..

    *Sigh*

    Anywho, nail size in Ancient Roman practice (from same link as above):

    Occasionally, scourging preceded crucifixion, which would cause the condemned to lose a large amount of blood, and approach a state of shock. The convict then usually had to carry the horizontal beam (patibulum in Latin) to the place of execution, but not necessarily the whole cross.[citation needed] Crucifixion was typically carried out by specialized teams, consisting of a commanding centurion and four soldiers.[citation needed]When it was done in an established place of execution, the vertical beam (stipes) could even be permanently embedded in the ground.[citation needed] It's claimed by certain religious texts that the victims of crucifixion were stripped naked before being put on the cross—all the New Testament gospels describe soldiers gambling for the robes of Jesus.[82]

    The 'nails' were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7 inches (13 to 18 cm) long, with a square shaft 3⁄8 inch (10 mm) across.[citation needed]

    Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals.[83]

    Well, different times and I don't think sanity really factored into it. While we may consider it cruel and barbaric, we should also consider that this was the preferred method of killing civilians who weren't of the higher class, in Roman times. It is well documented, Christ aside that is.. And now consider that people actually recreate this, nails and all, in some countries every Easter, without chickens, but with human beings who volunteer..
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,210
    They appear to have treated him in ways that would prolong his survival - vinegar solution to combat dehydration, not breaking his legs, etc. The normal reason for that would be to prolong the suffering - not in this case.
    Johnson bar equivalent and a block of wood would remove a double headed or tapered spike without any more damage than already incurred. Remember that the Romans were re-using all this stuff routinely - nails were expensive, crosses too, they weren't making it up as they went along.
     
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,406
    should have used pig carcass and six inch nails, would have been a more accurate experiment. apparently, humans and pigs resemble eachother in many ways. heh.

    i mean it would have been smarter to go to the grocery store and just bought some pigs feet.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,826
    I don't think so. The vinegar story seems to me like the way we offer water to someone dying, to relieve the discomfort of a dry mouth. And, according to the story, they only did not break his legs because he was already dead.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,826
    This made me roar with laughter.

    As you say, imagine the neighbours, peering through their lace curtains: "There he goes again, that funny man, with a block of wood, a hammer, and....and...it looks like a chicken.....!!!"
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,070

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    :EDIT:

    Off chance, do you live in an area with a lot off fundamentalists?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
    exchemist and Bells like this.
  16. spidergoat Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,236
    If you don't nail the nails in all the way, you can knock them off with a hammer. No one was concerned that removing the nails would harm the victim.
     
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,688
    You are a bluffing character, why don't you go to wikipedia an look for reenactment of crucifixion . There are several men that go through the reenactment and are crucified every year , You don't have to go through crucifying your chicken. Your bluff is of bad taste.
     
  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,647
    You really think this is a showstopper?

    The Romans had beat the man to a bloody pulp and crucified him. Now you think they are concerned about mutilating the body. And it's not like Joseph expected Jesus to rise. (That twist in the plot caught everyone by surprise.) It wouldn't surprise me if they just yanked him off the cross.

    To me, this is a non-issue - and I don't believe the story in the first place.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,643
    I read somewhere that he likely asphyxiated. After a day or two, his head falls forward on his chest he will choke to death,
     
  20. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,688
    To a of ill intentioned let him read
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/asia/philippines-easter-good-friday-crucifixion/
    It is possible to remove the nails without further damage. People have been going through the crusifixion more then one time.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,210
    Relieving discomfort would hardly have been the point, eh? Vinegar, in that situation, prolongs life. They did not break his legs while he was alive, which again prolongs life in that situation. It's normally a cruelty, prolonging life in that situation.
    Not that quickly, with unbroken legs. It's possible, but not likely.
    He was taken down the same day.

    Look, I'm just saying - it's not my conspiracy theory (I have another one, involving Jesus ransoming his rebel son by offering his own life, more complicated - and not necessarily exclusive), but it is right there: that was one very odd, brief, and conveniently arranged crucifixion.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,826
    Well, relieving discomfort would have been the point for his friends and relatives, who - according to the story - were present. But it is not important.

    Again according to the story, the legs were broken to kill them off quickly, so that the bodies did not remain on the Sabbath ("for that sabbath was a high day") - on the face of it, some sort of concession to local Jewish custom. I'm not sure whether the sabbath in question was the feast of the Passover itself, but the story puts the event at Passover time. But that implies that in this case they definitely took the bodies down - not just that of Jesus but the two other victims as well. And they found they did not need to bother breaking Jesus's legs, as he was dead already. I read somewhere that the scourging might have weakened him so he died rather more quickly than normal for victims of straight crucifixion.

    So, to Dave's point, they accelerated the deaths on this occasion compared to normal practice - according to the story. Whether any other historical evidence can shed light on whether or not this sort of thing was done in Judea at that time, I do not know.
     
  23. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    560
    It would be if the chicken rose three days later.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
    Michael 345 likes this.

Share This Page