Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Specifically “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet” (Dial. 6 [Cons. Marc.] 20.3)

So too -- i.e. saying otherwise -- does Herodotus in his report of the way the satrap Artayctes was crucified by the Athenians at the Hellespont: “They nailed him to planks and hung him there. And they stoned Artayctes’ son before his eyes”

Then there's Josephus note that there was no fixed pattern for crucifying people -- much depended on the sadistic ingenuity of the moment.

Quote:

When they [the fugitives] were going to be taken [by the Romans], they were forced to offer resistance, and when the fighting ended it seemed too late to sue for mercy. Scourged and subjected before death to every torture, they were finally crucified in view of the wall [of Jerusalem]. Titus indeed realized the horror of what was happening, for every day 500—sometimes even more—fell into his hands. However, it was not safe to let men captured by force go free, and to guard such a host of prisoners would tie up a great proportion of his troops. But his chief reason for not stopping the slaughter was the hope that the sight of it would perhaps induce the Jews to surrender in order to avoid the same fate. The soldiers themselves through rage and bitterness nailed up their victims in different postures as a grim joke, till owing to the vast numbers there was no room for the crosses and no crosses for the bodies (JW 5 §449–51).

And then there are the pre Barnabas references to condemned to be crucified carrying a patibulum -- a transverse beam -- to the place of execution (on this, see Martin Hengel, Crucifixion) -- a book I guarantee you Pete has never read) These references make no sense make no sense unless a cross had a cross-piece attached either at the top of an upright or just below the top.

So ... so much for Pete's claims to be familar with the evidence, let alone what it does and doesn't show.

But of course, these too are all Eusebian forgeries and interpolations!

Jeffrey

Originally Posted by God Fearing Atheist

There is another reference in Epictetus' Discourses 3.26.22: "..when you have taken off your clothes and stretched yourself out like those who are crucified you may be rubied on this side and on that..."

And in Against Heresies 2.23.4: "The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which the person rests who is fixed by the nails."

But as we all know, Epictetus and Irenaeus are part of the fiction of the Galileans, created by Imperial Mafia Thug Constantine and Eusebius.

Originally Posted by patcleaver

This has all been exposed numerous times, for example:

see Forgery In Christianity By Joseph Wheless, http://www.infidels.org/library/hist..._christianity/

Originally Posted by patcleaver

There is no such thing as direct translations. The translator uses a source language Lexicon, and possibly some grammar rules, to determine the words and structure of the original text, usually in a non-native language. Then he decides what it means in view of his biases. Then he writes what he thinks it means in his own language.

The lexicons and grammar rules are based on the biases of the person who developed the lexicon and the grammar rules.

Originally Posted by patcleaver

There is no such thing as direct translations. The translator uses a source language Lexicon, and possibly some grammar rules, to determine the words and structure of the original text, usually in a non-native language. Then he decides what it means in view of his biases. Then he writes what he thinks it means in his own language.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Christian crosses = 4th century. The evidence is that we have no (christian) crosses from the (purported) time of Barnabas.

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I infer from this that Mr Cleaver is monoglot, because, well, there is a whole industry of people who offer translation services, you know.

I don't do this when I translate. I wouldn't employ anyone who did, when I hire people to do translations. I don't know anyone who does this. If you're going to the trouble of making a translation, it is usually because you want to know what the original said.

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Josephus tells us they were "nailed" and Seneca the Younger tells us that one of the positions included the use of a crossbar upon which the victim's arms were outstretched. The Epistle of Barnabas explicitly compares the position of Jesus to the letter "tau".

You've already been shown the evidence before and, apparently, chose to ignore it just as you did the questions asked of you and the book reference offered to you.

Originally Posted by aa5874

But when was the epistle of Barnabus written?