You left out the best part of the story Offa!
That walking cross talks too. Ish

and from the cross there was heard the answer, 'Yea'.

Ish, you are right, that is the best part of the story.
It was right in front of me on p.285 The Lost Books
of the Bible. I'll bet I've had that book 20 years!

I have enjoyed the humor all day long. Talking about
one-up-manship ... you are now one up and pay back is
hell (L.O.L.).

I drove to the office this morning before sunrise and
we have two crews of eight men on their way to the
job up in Cleveland (about an hour away). I got on the
internet to check the weather (radar) and to check
for jobs to bid on. I took a quick peek at the Infidels
and read your reply. All day long I was laughing and
saying to myself "Yea Man!"

thanks, offa


P.S. I write my own stuff and use my own judgements.
I am quite serious about what I write and when I seem
rude I do not intend to be. I did not think about what
you wrote and replied to what I thought you wrote and
the book was right in front of me and opened to the
correct page.

A criminal by Judaic law only but since the enforcement of the law IS the law the Romans were involved. Th posting of the guards was to prevent resurrection prior to the third day which would have converted the divine comedy into a tragedy because Jesus would have become the final imposter (Mat.27:64).

Diane, I do not know much about what actually happened because I read the thing from a metaphysical perspective and based on this do I know that it was true . . . but not quite as believers may read and interpret the events.

So maybe my best answer is that the Romans were also symbolic.

Amos

Hi Everyone,

There are some good responses here so I am going to ask a few more questions.

I think Metacrock makes a good point, (and I can't believe I am agreeing with him ) when he says "No where does the Bible say "Jesus feet were not pierced." NOt saying they were is not the same as saying they were not. One can assume they were becasue that's
what they did in crucifiction." He's right. It doesn't say that Jesus' feet were not pierced. It also doesn't say that Jesus' feet were pierced. It just says that Jesus was crucified.

However Metacrock, how can one assume that this is what "they did in crucifiction"? Muad'dib said that he saw something about some skeletons that were found with their ankles pierced, but didn't give a reference. Well, where can we find some documentation about crucifictions. I mean, the piercing of the ankles may or may not be common practice.
Do we find examples in history or archieology(sp) where people where crucified without their ankles or feet pierced? Perhaps that had little platforms to stand on like in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian." (Please note that I don't consider MP a solid historical reference.) Actually, that might be a bit more cruel than piercing the ankles because the executed would suffer longer on the cross. Breaking of the legs would then make sense because one could actually stand up a little moreso than with a nail through their ankles.

Metacrock asks, "Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Who cares? What difference does it make?"

-The difference would be in that it would give some credence to Offa's claims and beliefs about Jesus' life. Also, it would put a spin on the Shroud of Turin claim of authenticity in that it may not be Jesus because it depicts someone with pierced ankles. (Personally, I believe that science dissproves it better but this would be one more argument to use in discussion.)

-Spider



[This message has been edited by Spider (edited June 28, 2001).]

Thanks Spider. What you have said is basically my point. Jesus walked around shortly after the crucifixion and talked to his disciples. He gave up the ghost but what the hell was that? He was pierced and he bled meaning that his heart was pumping. They did not break his legs. They broke the co-conspirators legs (If his ankles were pierced what the hell good would it be to break his legs?). And, if his co-conspirators ankles were pierced why break their legs? They broke their legs because nobody's ankles were pierced.

thanks, offa

Here is some information on crucifixion by Joe Zias who was the Curator of Archaeology/Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority from 1972 to 1997.

In the article there is a close-up picture of a crucifixion victim (known as the crucified man from Giv'At Ha-Mivtar) with a nail through his ankle.

I still don't see exactly why this matters, but obviously the "feet" of crucifixion victims were occasionally pierced. Also, though the Bible does not directly mention Jesus' feet being pierced, it does seem to imply that they were.

Ish

You will notice that the bible impies lots of things. It implies that Mary was a cherry when all hebrew girls were perpteual virgins. It implies that Jesus died on the cross but it really does not say so. It implies that Jesus was born in A.D. 6 when he was actually born in 7 b.c.e. It implies that the apostles could bring people back to life when they were just converting them and taking their money. So, was this person with pierced ankles carbon dated?

thanks, offa