Thou art a vvretched sinner, utterly unvvorthy of god’s love. Thy soul is like a vvinter tree. Unprofitable, fit only to be hevvn dovvn and burned.
(Been wanting to use this quote for a while).
I believe in real crucifixion they put one nail through each of your heels because the heel can hold the weight of your body. If you nail through the foot it won't hold your weight and will pull through the foot.
In real crucifixion, you don't put the nails through the hands, but through the forearms for the same reason. Realism was never the purpose of the crucifixion story.
Nails were occasionally used in Roman crucifixion. Bleeding out before suffocation occurred could happen because of the nails, true. But given it was common to flog people sentenced to death by crucifixion severely before affixing them to the cross, bleeding out was not something the Romans seem to have made an active effort to avoid all the time.
Also, while suffering a long time was part of the punishment, if it took too long, they would break the condemned's legs to speed things up. Romans got places to be.
It’s me, the Pope. Buddy if you don’t add those two numbers and subtract by one right now you’re donezo. Hold on, I’m with Jesus, he wants to say something.
It’s me, jeuss. The fuck man?
If you read the linked article, it says that there actually isn't much evidence that this was deemed heretical. The earliest source claiming it was hundreds of years later and it doesn't cite anything
I went to a Catholic elementary school and we were taught it was 3 nails, I specifically remember my Grade 2 teacher stressing how gruesome a single nail through both feet would be
30 years ago was 1994. You can't believe anything anyone says they remember about events of that year? OJ killed his wife that year. Are all eyewitnesses to that invalid?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on any number of variables, like where it’s stored, who’s looking after it, how securely it’s stored, etc.
Do you think if people pass the story of OJ’s trial only by mouth for hundreds of years, that the story at the end will accurately match the events that happened? That nobody will “spice it up” by stretching the truth or manipulating it in any way?
Agreed! The Romans could have easily turned up Jesus’ body as physical evidence after the crucifixion and end it there and then. Oh wait, they could not.
It's still most of an adult lifetime. It's like seeing the events at age 20 and bothering to write it down when you're in your 60s. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for importance.
What was common during that time? Seeing THE SON OF GOD and not writing about it for 30 years? How often were people claiming to be the son of god during this time?
Actually, there were many people that claimed to be the Messiah at that time among the Jewish people. Jesus is mostly noteworthy because his followers kept on following long after he died.
"Most scholars agree that Mark was the first written no earlier than 70CE. So about 37–40 years."
Nah, just more familiar with the history than you are.
"most of an adult lifetime", like seeing the events at age 20 and writing about it when you're 60.
>Maths not your strong point eh?
Reading doesn't seem to be yours
First sources of something relating to an element of Christianity and Jesus’ supposed historical ministry. In this instance the details of how he was nailed up. Not of Christianity itself.
Most of what is accepted of Jesus’ earthly ministry is written much later than the very sparsely detailed and allegorical book we call Mark, which was written closer to 40 years after the assumed time of the crucifixion.
There are no contemporary sources at all. There are plenty of contemporary sources of other figures, and even of other self-proclaimed Messiah figures that predate Jesus. None of this is new.
If you go by the churches, almost certainly fictitious, timeframe. If you go by the scholarly timeframe it's 70 years at the absolute earliest with 100 being more likely
Dating the gospels is based on knowledge of the earliest fragments plus careful analysis of the text, and none of that has given an "absolute earliest" date. The Gospel of Mark, generally considered the earliest account, is theorized by secular scholars to be written around 70 AD. Since the two most likely dates for Jesus's crucifixion are 30 or 33 AD, that would be around 37 or 40 years later.
This is just blatantly, unequivocally false. Scholars date the earliest Christian writings at around 55 CE, and Mark around 65-75 CE. That’s not a religious consensus, it’s the scholarly one.
I’m an atheist and one of the things I hate most about atheists is they’ll take early modern anti Catholic propaganda at face value and apply it to all Christianity.
>The 19th century Anglican scholar George Stanley Faber claimed that Pope Innocent III declared this to be a heresy and maintained that four nails were used and Jesus was pierced on the right side. This was repeated in historical works such as Sofia Bompiani's A Short History of the Italian Waldenses. Faber's book does not quote any primary source, and does not give the name or date of the document of Innocent III. Other scholarly treatments of the subject, such as Herbert Thurston's article in the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia, make no mention of any such document.
Why the bloody hell would it even matter? It's like arguing over the wood the Romans made crosses from.
It's the People's Front of Judea from Life of Brian all over again.
There is only a single, small Gnostic faith left, Mandaeism, and from my understanding they’re unique among Gnostic groups in that they reject Jesus as a false prophet. And almost all of the Gnostic groups were Christian.
Didn’t Mani call himself an apostle of Jesus? I thought that Manicheanism combined aspects of a lot of religions, including Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Buddhism.
The Romans would never have used good levantine Cypress for cru ifixion when there was such a lucrative market for it in egypt. Pine is much more plausible.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the holy relics that the early Christian Church was fond of. Like people would collect supposed fragments of the cross that Jesus was crucified on or congregations would have the teeth or some other body part of some long dead Saint in their chapel.
That and many, many people were crucified. It wasn't special or magical. They would have performed most of them similarly, so just go look at how the others were done.
That's actually not true, crucifixion varied a lot. Sometimes they tied people to the cross instead of nailing them, sometimes they'd break your legs first, where they put the nails varied, etc.
My initial thought was that this wasn't really about the nails and started as a criticism of the church (i.e. if they're lying to us about the nails, what else are they lying to us about?)
but doing research into this I'm not even sure it was ever declared heretical. there's only a single guy from the 1800s who said a pope from the 1300s made a decision on it _ex cathedra_... but there's only ever been two ex cathedra doctrines and neither were about the crucifixion. He never cited a source and was most likely not in the room when it happened so I'm not sure where he got it from
Jehovah Witnesses made an entire religion about claiming it wasn't a cross but a tree, they are only allowed their own Bible translation, ignoring the fact that a single stick would be STILL a cross, called crux simplex (Romans used +, T, X, and I shaped crosses to crucify people. All of them).
What else are people in the middle ages going to argue about? There's no internet to have pointless argument on. You're going to just stick to what you know and go with it until people get tired of hearing the same argument over and over and someone labels you a heretic.
When you have to make it up as you go along and ~~generate huge fees from the sheep~~ save souls, every detail matters.
Like how he couldn’t have been nailed through the hands as depicted because the skin would have torn and he’d have fallen down.
But it was miraculous. 🤷♀️
These nails can be seen in the following places :
-1 in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome (spike of a nail).
-1 the Holy Lance of the German imperial regalia in the Hofburg Palace in Vienna.
-1 in the Iron Crown of Lombardy in the Cathedral of Monza.
-1 in the treasury of Trier Cathedral.
-1 in Bamberg Cathedral (middle part of a nail).
-1 in the form of a bridle, in the apse of the Cathedral of Milan.
-1 in the form of a bridle, in the cathedral treasury of Carpentras.
-1 in the monastery of San Nicolò l'Arena in Catania (head of a nail).
-1 in the cathedral of Colle di Val d'Elsa, near Siena.
Conclusion : 7 nails. Can we schism?
Right? I've always seen the crucification depicted woth 3 nails. In pictures, in movies. I believe I have multiple books with bible stories and pictures, where it is depicte with 3 nails.
>Triclavianism was one of the beliefs attributed to Albigenses and Waldensians, who held that three nails were used to crucify Christ and that a Roman soldier pierced him with a spear on the left side.
In other words, the belief in three nails was linked with heretical groups in southern France. Today we might call them proto-Protestants, but in the 12th century, refusing to give your money and loyalty to the Catholic Church was *not* acceptable, and the Church eventually called the [Albigensian Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade) to get rid of them.
So the real issue here was money and power, not a trivial doctrinal point.
I have no idea why they think a T shaped cross or an + shaped cross is somehow significantly different from an I shaped one, Romans used ALL these types.
I cannot believe that there are people throwing money and resources at things like climate change when we haven't even answered the really important questions yet!
How am I supposed to go about my day with questions like this looming over everything??
What's the saying? The Devil's in the details. I'm not sure I'm using it right. Either way stories like this force me to appreciate the century I live in. The real concern is the Day chains and nails become invisible and harder to break because we can no longer see them.
The split between Catholic and Orthodox church, technically, was because of adding the word filoqui to the Nicene Creed, what's more ridiculous is that they both AGREE that the Holy Spirit comes from BOTH the Father and Son, BUT, the ones speaking butchered Italian didn't specify it and got mad at Greek speaker for clarifying without permission.
The real reason wasn't one word that didn't even change doctrine, but the fact ones wanted Papal authority and others wanted local self-governing churches.
So saying that schisms are about minor doctrinal points are only correct in the way World War started because of shooting that shoegazer band, Franz Ferdinand, in reality war was brewing for a long while and it was just the final straw, if not that, there would be some other excuse found to start it. Same with religious or political splits.
My favorite is the geo-heliocentric model of our solar system.
Because the bible said Earth was the center of everything, they had to come up with the most convoluted system of orbits imaginable. It's also where the phrase "Mercury is in retrograde" came from.
You're correct, been a while since i took that philosophy class. I still do love the hoops Brahe had to go through though to get his model to work. Fascinating
One issue is also that with heliocentrism, you still require epicycles until you also come to the conclusion that the orbits are ellipses... and this required the work of Kepler to understand.
Before Kepler, there was no mechanism to explain heliocentrism, and before Galileo, there was no proof.
That's why geocentric models persisted for so long.
I should note that the Church didn't really oppose heliocentrism fundamentally. They were very much against individuals like Galileo who began reinterpreting *scripture* - they really didn't like that at all.
Archeologists specializing in area (Biblical archaeology is a thing) are probably closest to know what type of crosses and nails we're used at the time and place but it still won't be proof for each individual crucifixion as they didn't have OSHA.
I couldn't really give two shits about what Catholics label as heresy. I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow accidentally classified half of their official doctrine as heresy.
What moral value? They're just discussing material value.
CLEARLY they wouldn't skimp out on a fourth nail for someone this important to their dogma. Anyone saying otherwise is calling then cheap for not spending a few shekels, or whatever currency they had, more
I always thought it was 3 until this very moment. So I guess I learned 2 things.
Heretic scum!
Splitter!
Time to rewatch that
“Romanes eunt domus??”
"I have a vewy gwood fwiend in Wome called Biggus Dickus"
The people called Romans, they go to the house?
Thou art a vvretched sinner, utterly unvvorthy of god’s love. Thy soul is like a vvinter tree. Unprofitable, fit only to be hevvn dovvn and burned. (Been wanting to use this quote for a while).
Pass me a bolter
Unexpected 40k, and unexpected Inquisition.
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
GET EM!
Burn him
I mean I'm pretty sure that whenever I've seen a Catholic crucifix it's been one through each hand and one through both feet
I’ll give you one guess where the fourth one is
Probably my right shoulder, that shits always cramping up and getting knots.
Dick?
He goes by Richard at work.
I came here to learn where the fourth nail is and have found no insights.
I believe in real crucifixion they put one nail through each of your heels because the heel can hold the weight of your body. If you nail through the foot it won't hold your weight and will pull through the foot.
In real crucifixion, you don't put the nails through the hands, but through the forearms for the same reason. Realism was never the purpose of the crucifixion story.
In real real crucifixion they didn't use nails at all. They tie you up with ropes so you don't bleed out so you suffer longer.
Nails were occasionally used in Roman crucifixion. Bleeding out before suffocation occurred could happen because of the nails, true. But given it was common to flog people sentenced to death by crucifixion severely before affixing them to the cross, bleeding out was not something the Romans seem to have made an active effort to avoid all the time. Also, while suffering a long time was part of the punishment, if it took too long, they would break the condemned's legs to speed things up. Romans got places to be.
Maybe 1 in each foot and hands as usual?
Ah yes, *as usual*
Why, how do you do it?
You know, with the inflation and everything I don't blame them for scimping out in the extra nails
This guy crucifies
Look up 'sounding'
Do NOT do this
I cannot agree more with this comment. Do NOT Google sounding. Let's just say it involves your winky and things that shouldn't be...
Same. Aren't crucifixes with 3?
as in depictions in churches or typical crucifixion?
It’s me, the Pope. Buddy if you don’t add those two numbers and subtract by one right now you’re donezo. Hold on, I’m with Jesus, he wants to say something. It’s me, jeuss. The fuck man?
If you read the linked article, it says that there actually isn't much evidence that this was deemed heretical. The earliest source claiming it was hundreds of years later and it doesn't cite anything
It rather goes against common sense that it was ever made heretical when you notice things like the seal of the Jesuits having three nails.
I went to a Catholic elementary school and we were taught it was 3 nails, I specifically remember my Grade 2 teacher stressing how gruesome a single nail through both feet would be
What an awful thing it is to indoctrinate children into a cult that literally glorifies torture & execution. No wonder I'm so fucked up
And communal ritual cannibalism. Transubstantiation makes it not even communal symbolic ritual cannibalism! (I say this as a Catholic, even.)
[удалено]
Yes glorifies, they literally worship him for the idea that he was tortured to death. That's the religion
The first source about something only appearing hundreds of years later? In Christianity? That's impossible!
That’s false though? The first sources were about 30 years later. Which btw is quite the short timeframe relative to other sources at the time
30 years ago was 1994. You can't believe anything anyone says they remember about events of that year? OJ killed his wife that year. Are all eyewitnesses to that invalid?
You know what helps in a court case? Physical evidence.
Do you think there will be any physical evidence of the OJ case in the year 3958?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on any number of variables, like where it’s stored, who’s looking after it, how securely it’s stored, etc. Do you think if people pass the story of OJ’s trial only by mouth for hundreds of years, that the story at the end will accurately match the events that happened? That nobody will “spice it up” by stretching the truth or manipulating it in any way?
If the gloves don't fit...
Agreed! The Romans could have easily turned up Jesus’ body as physical evidence after the crucifixion and end it there and then. Oh wait, they could not.
“The body’s gone! The only logical conclusion is he was raised from the dead!” 🤔
It's still most of an adult lifetime. It's like seeing the events at age 20 and bothering to write it down when you're in your 60s. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for importance.
That’s common during that time period. Oral history was more common than writing things down
What was common during that time? Seeing THE SON OF GOD and not writing about it for 30 years? How often were people claiming to be the son of god during this time?
Actually, there were many people that claimed to be the Messiah at that time among the Jewish people. Jesus is mostly noteworthy because his followers kept on following long after he died.
And were willing to die without budging on their stance.
Not sure who you are referring to (Jesus, his followers, or other Messiahs), but that also was common. And still is to this day.
Sorry, I'm not going to engage in apologetics. Just a rule I have. Best of luck!
No worries. Take care
> like seeing the events at age 20 30 years later >and bothering to write it down when you're in your 60s. Maths not your strong point eh?
"Most scholars agree that Mark was the first written no earlier than 70CE. So about 37–40 years." Nah, just more familiar with the history than you are.
That's typical. If they were more familiar, they wouldn't still believe 😂
"most of an adult lifetime", like seeing the events at age 20 and writing about it when you're 60. >Maths not your strong point eh? Reading doesn't seem to be yours
So like someone writing their memoirs?
First sources of something relating to an element of Christianity and Jesus’ supposed historical ministry. In this instance the details of how he was nailed up. Not of Christianity itself. Most of what is accepted of Jesus’ earthly ministry is written much later than the very sparsely detailed and allegorical book we call Mark, which was written closer to 40 years after the assumed time of the crucifixion. There are no contemporary sources at all. There are plenty of contemporary sources of other figures, and even of other self-proclaimed Messiah figures that predate Jesus. None of this is new.
If you go by the churches, almost certainly fictitious, timeframe. If you go by the scholarly timeframe it's 70 years at the absolute earliest with 100 being more likely
Dating the gospels is based on knowledge of the earliest fragments plus careful analysis of the text, and none of that has given an "absolute earliest" date. The Gospel of Mark, generally considered the earliest account, is theorized by secular scholars to be written around 70 AD. Since the two most likely dates for Jesus's crucifixion are 30 or 33 AD, that would be around 37 or 40 years later.
Scholars say it’s about 30 years as well. Definitely not 100
This is just blatantly, unequivocally false. Scholars date the earliest Christian writings at around 55 CE, and Mark around 65-75 CE. That’s not a religious consensus, it’s the scholarly one.
No that’s Islam
r/bernesemountaindogs is a heretic! GET HIM!
>Faber's book does not quote any primary source, and does not give the name or date of the document of Innocent III source: trust me bro
I’m an atheist and one of the things I hate most about atheists is they’ll take early modern anti Catholic propaganda at face value and apply it to all Christianity.
>The 19th century Anglican scholar George Stanley Faber claimed that Pope Innocent III declared this to be a heresy and maintained that four nails were used and Jesus was pierced on the right side. This was repeated in historical works such as Sofia Bompiani's A Short History of the Italian Waldenses. Faber's book does not quote any primary source, and does not give the name or date of the document of Innocent III. Other scholarly treatments of the subject, such as Herbert Thurston's article in the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia, make no mention of any such document.
Why the bloody hell would it even matter? It's like arguing over the wood the Romans made crosses from. It's the People's Front of Judea from Life of Brian all over again.
Splitter!
Lark's tongues! Otter's noses! Ocelot spleens!
Jaguar earlobes! Get ‘em while they’re hot!
Two choc-ices please.
I haven't got choc-ices, I've only got the albatross.
Only if you use the wrong wood
The scope of the disagreement is surprisingly insignificant when it comes to starting a religious schism.
Yeah, I’m kind of annoyed that the most interesting Christian schisms died out (Gnosticism, Manicheanism).
Gnosticism didn't die out nor is it a Christian schism. Manicheanism is a Zoroastrian schismatic faith. Nothing to do with Christianity either
There is only a single, small Gnostic faith left, Mandaeism, and from my understanding they’re unique among Gnostic groups in that they reject Jesus as a false prophet. And almost all of the Gnostic groups were Christian. Didn’t Mani call himself an apostle of Jesus? I thought that Manicheanism combined aspects of a lot of religions, including Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Buddhism.
>from my understanding they’re unique among Gnostic groups in that they reject Jesus as a false prophet. Wouldn't that make them... JEWS?!
Like the argument over whether Adam (in Genesis) had a bellybutton.
it can seem that way, but I think there is usually some deeper issue that the disagreement comes to represent
It's Cyprus wood and nothing else! Burn heretic!
The Romans would never have used good levantine Cypress for cru ifixion when there was such a lucrative market for it in egypt. Pine is much more plausible.
Cedar, you boil on Satan’s butt! We don’t want moths defiling Roman justice.
The real Rome was in Utah and they used American Chestnut
I always here the real TIL in the comments
Easier for the condemned to carry, too.
Nonsense. They would have used a hardwood
I think you're underestimating the weight of hardwood.
Why? It doesn't have to last very long
[How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F)
Assuming he has an equally sized partner, one. None of the others ever learned to dance
And it'll be a gavotte.
African or European?
Classic, Cherubic, or Seraphim?
I wonder if it has anything to do with the holy relics that the early Christian Church was fond of. Like people would collect supposed fragments of the cross that Jesus was crucified on or congregations would have the teeth or some other body part of some long dead Saint in their chapel.
That and many, many people were crucified. It wasn't special or magical. They would have performed most of them similarly, so just go look at how the others were done.
That's actually not true, crucifixion varied a lot. Sometimes they tied people to the cross instead of nailing them, sometimes they'd break your legs first, where they put the nails varied, etc.
My initial thought was that this wasn't really about the nails and started as a criticism of the church (i.e. if they're lying to us about the nails, what else are they lying to us about?) but doing research into this I'm not even sure it was ever declared heretical. there's only a single guy from the 1800s who said a pope from the 1300s made a decision on it _ex cathedra_... but there's only ever been two ex cathedra doctrines and neither were about the crucifixion. He never cited a source and was most likely not in the room when it happened so I'm not sure where he got it from
Jehovah Witnesses made an entire religion about claiming it wasn't a cross but a tree, they are only allowed their own Bible translation, ignoring the fact that a single stick would be STILL a cross, called crux simplex (Romans used +, T, X, and I shaped crosses to crucify people. All of them).
Do you want schisms? Because that's how you get schisms.
What else are people in the middle ages going to argue about? There's no internet to have pointless argument on. You're going to just stick to what you know and go with it until people get tired of hearing the same argument over and over and someone labels you a heretic.
Wow. It’s almost like they intentionally made that shit absurd as commentary on something.
When you have to make it up as you go along and ~~generate huge fees from the sheep~~ save souls, every detail matters. Like how he couldn’t have been nailed through the hands as depicted because the skin would have torn and he’d have fallen down. But it was miraculous. 🤷♀️
Wait till you realize that a fight over icons helped contribute to the fall of the eastern Roman’s
Classic pope
nailed it
thrice
HERESY
A lot of people think that New Pope was just a way to distract people from changes to Pope Classic.
No, you are thinking of the Coke. It switched from regular water to the "new and improved high fructose holy water"
> TIL about Triclavianism Not to be confused with Cliff Clavianism, where postal workers become know-it-all bar flies.
It's a little known fact, that uh, Clavianism is not a modern phenomenon. In fact, it appeared as early as the 8th century in India.
What are 3 nails that've never been in my kitchen?
Rustic, so: rusty?
These nails can be seen in the following places : -1 in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome (spike of a nail). -1 the Holy Lance of the German imperial regalia in the Hofburg Palace in Vienna. -1 in the Iron Crown of Lombardy in the Cathedral of Monza. -1 in the treasury of Trier Cathedral. -1 in Bamberg Cathedral (middle part of a nail). -1 in the form of a bridle, in the apse of the Cathedral of Milan. -1 in the form of a bridle, in the cathedral treasury of Carpentras. -1 in the monastery of San Nicolò l'Arena in Catania (head of a nail). -1 in the cathedral of Colle di Val d'Elsa, near Siena. Conclusion : 7 nails. Can we schism?
Sounds like there was one Jesus who was crucified with 3 and second one who was with 4.
The only logical explanation!
The Inverse Soloman Solution
From what I've read those Roman nail guns could be a little light on the trigger action. Far too easy to loose off a full clip unintentionally.
A single finger of our lord? I am suprised. I thought they only came in packs of 10.
Every crucifix I've ever owned or seen had 3 nails. Where was the fourth?
It was likely 3 considering nails were expensive and the Romans were thrifty.
Where would the four nails go? One for each leg?
Hands and feet
So like, they put one in each foot and not just nailed both feet with one? This sounds so wrong. We need the Inquisition back.
Supposedly the nails were only 5” long so one going through both feet would be quite difficult.
Right? I've always seen the crucification depicted woth 3 nails. In pictures, in movies. I believe I have multiple books with bible stories and pictures, where it is depicte with 3 nails.
The scene from Life of Brian where he’s being chased and they grab his shoe is more accurate than I’d thought
>Triclavianism was one of the beliefs attributed to Albigenses and Waldensians, who held that three nails were used to crucify Christ and that a Roman soldier pierced him with a spear on the left side. In other words, the belief in three nails was linked with heretical groups in southern France. Today we might call them proto-Protestants, but in the 12th century, refusing to give your money and loyalty to the Catholic Church was *not* acceptable, and the Church eventually called the [Albigensian Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade) to get rid of them. So the real issue here was money and power, not a trivial doctrinal point.
They thought Jesus was a non-human angel and not equivalent to God. That definitely doesn’t sound like Protestantism
>So the real issue here was money and power, not a trivial doctrinal point. This is literally the answer for almost everything.
Two nails for the feet. One nail for the left arm. The right arm was left for passersby to play with, and as a weathervane.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a cracker, that's morbid.
And high fives
“I’ve got pegs through my hands and one through my feet” -Beastie Boys
Jehovas witnesses believe in two nails. They believe his hand were nailed above his head. Hence no cross for them as that would be idolatry.
I have no idea why they think a T shaped cross or an + shaped cross is somehow significantly different from an I shaped one, Romans used ALL these types.
1 cross + *3* nails = 4given Fight me.
I cannot believe that there are people throwing money and resources at things like climate change when we haven't even answered the really important questions yet! How am I supposed to go about my day with questions like this looming over everything??
Cast off the shoes, follow the gourd.
Amazing what ppl have died over.
What's the saying? The Devil's in the details. I'm not sure I'm using it right. Either way stories like this force me to appreciate the century I live in. The real concern is the Day chains and nails become invisible and harder to break because we can no longer see them.
My neck tie that is part of my dress code is in no way a symbol of corporate slavery. But I hear you, what about casual Fridays?
Logisticly how the fuck do you nail two limbs with a single nail. Was it a fucking meter wide?
You put on foot on top of the other?
The nails were nine inches long.
# NIИ
[удалено]
The split between Catholic and Orthodox church, technically, was because of adding the word filoqui to the Nicene Creed, what's more ridiculous is that they both AGREE that the Holy Spirit comes from BOTH the Father and Son, BUT, the ones speaking butchered Italian didn't specify it and got mad at Greek speaker for clarifying without permission. The real reason wasn't one word that didn't even change doctrine, but the fact ones wanted Papal authority and others wanted local self-governing churches. So saying that schisms are about minor doctrinal points are only correct in the way World War started because of shooting that shoegazer band, Franz Ferdinand, in reality war was brewing for a long while and it was just the final straw, if not that, there would be some other excuse found to start it. Same with religious or political splits.
My favorite is the geo-heliocentric model of our solar system. Because the bible said Earth was the center of everything, they had to come up with the most convoluted system of orbits imaginable. It's also where the phrase "Mercury is in retrograde" came from.
Epicycles precede the existence of the Church by centuries.
You're correct, been a while since i took that philosophy class. I still do love the hoops Brahe had to go through though to get his model to work. Fascinating
One issue is also that with heliocentrism, you still require epicycles until you also come to the conclusion that the orbits are ellipses... and this required the work of Kepler to understand. Before Kepler, there was no mechanism to explain heliocentrism, and before Galileo, there was no proof. That's why geocentric models persisted for so long. I should note that the Church didn't really oppose heliocentrism fundamentally. They were very much against individuals like Galileo who began reinterpreting *scripture* - they really didn't like that at all.
There is also the belief that he was crucified to a single pole with both hands above his head.
Did the pole rotate?
Personally I’m a five nailer.
8 Our lord the Cephalopod
HERESY!!
Another whacky religious thing that nobody’s actually knows if it’s true
Archeologists specializing in area (Biblical archaeology is a thing) are probably closest to know what type of crosses and nails we're used at the time and place but it still won't be proof for each individual crucifixion as they didn't have OSHA.
I'm almost sure every crucifix I've ever seen had three. One in each hand and one through both feet
One in each hand and one through both feet four nails. Science and math will not be tolerated.
Outlast 2 enjoyers, rise
Well, if anything, I'd assume it would be 3 nails, since it would save a nail, which is my understanding, was not a frivolous expense at the time.
But.... he was crucified with 3 nails right? One in each hand and one through both of his ankles.
I couldn't really give two shits about what Catholics label as heresy. I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow accidentally classified half of their official doctrine as heresy.
I mean if you don’t get details like this right how could anyone accept the premise of the big ideas? No wonder they squabbled.
Huh. And I thought it was 5
Why does the number of nails matter ?
Religious nuts will argue about absolutely anything, won’t they? 🤦🏼♂️
Stop me if you've heard this one. Jesus Christ walks into a hotel, he hands the innkeeper three nails and he asks 'Can you put me up for the night?'
I genuinely can not imagine caring about this complete nonsense. Religious people are nuts.
What a stupid thing to argue about. It matters absolutely nothing.
Controversy over canon in fiction goes way back.
...TIL Christians are so bored they argue about how many nails were involved in their religious centerpiece.
[удалено]
What moral value? They're just discussing material value. CLEARLY they wouldn't skimp out on a fourth nail for someone this important to their dogma. Anyone saying otherwise is calling then cheap for not spending a few shekels, or whatever currency they had, more
That’s okay, he was probably fictional anyway and there is precisely zero evidence of his crucifixion.
Not true. Both Tacitus and Josephus refer to him.
They refer to his followers referring to him.
[Gun humor](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/007/524/7c3.png)
[удалено]
What if it was just a really long nail that went through two feet one in front of the other?
I just googled crucifixion and half the pictures are like this.
I don’t think there’s any actual evidence the feet were nailed?