Outstretched hands and The Cross

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by GakuseiDon »

cora wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:46 pm Stauros means stake. That is it. When translated it should still mean stake. So wherever you see, hear, or read Cross etc., it is a forgery.
Justin invented it. If you care to read the whole thread you can see how he did it. Among other things he forged a psalm, which was then used in the gospels. The greek word for cross did not exist indeed, because there was no roman death penalty on a cross, only on a stake.
Therefore Jesus died on a stake.
But I think you're missing the point: I'm arguing that a cross-shaped stake is still called a stake; that is, with a pointy end that goes into the ground and used for execution. If you want to argue that a cross-shaped stake was not called a stake, then you'd need to find the word in Greek that differentiated between the two.

I get your point, and it is interesting and worth pursuing. Perhaps Jesus was hung on a single stake, and Justin writing in Latin changed the meaning. But it seems to me no evidence for it, and as crucifixions were still being done in Justin's time, it seems an odd mistake for him to make.
User avatar
Geocalyx
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by Geocalyx »

It all works if you consider stuff like Bruce Codex being a FORGERY in the name of THEOLOGY and speak like Trump to all that don't.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by cora »

Gakuseidon:
There are no cross-shaped stakes. A stake is a single piece of wood in an upright position. No cross shape. There was no cross. Justin invented it through forgeries in the OT. I don't know when it started to be used. Anyway cross is not the truth. The cross is a forgery.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by cora »

geocalyx: actually I don't know what the Bruce Codex is, only that it is in the gnostic library. It is supposed to be gnostic therefore. So I read a large part of it. The 2 pieces which are presented here are not the whole writing at all. They are not representative. They have been picked out. Gnosticism is a spiritual religion. It is about the unknowable father, the pleroma, aeons. It is high up in the universe.
Somebody described with hair, a mouth, arms etc is NOT gnostic. Stretched out arms is NOT gnostic. It is actually Christian forgery IN a gnostic writing, written in a way to make it look gnostic. Something like Israel cannot appear at all. What is it supposed to mean?
You are right: it is a forgery in the name of (Christian) theology.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by cora »

MacSon, are you always so afraid to affirm something? I thought it was simple. There is only a stake in reality, one piece of wood in an upright position. Through the written staurogram (with the form of a cross) Justin starts thinking. He is always changing things. He wants a cross, then we all can see the suffering better and there is more blood (What do I know). He searches the LXX. Than first he comes with a story about Moses and Jesus. Together they take care of the victory, as Jesus is at the head of the army and Moses takes the form of a cross. They belong together. Jesus and a cross is suggested. It is a false tale, because exodus says differently. So he brings in the cross on purpose.
Than he forges psalm 22. From: as lions they attack my hands and feet, he makes they PIERCED my hands and feet. Is there more needed to invent the crucifixion????

His papers go to Irenaeus in 170. In 185 four gospels are presented by Irenaeus. In all the 3 synoptics this psalm 22 is used to describe the crucifixion. Literally. Should that be a coincidence? I don't think so. There is nowhere written what a crucifixion exactly is. But the word cross is used multiple times (he has to carry his cross). So with a bit of imagination you know what is going to happen. Irenaeus did this on Justin's idea. There is no other explanation. Instead of the stake, the cross is introduced very definitely, because of the terrible carrying a long way, right after Justin wrote about it. Because there was no cross, there was the stake. There always had been the stake. The cross is an invention by Justin, and applied by Irenaeus in the gospels right after. But it is all not real, this did not happen. Ever. And nobody was ever carrying a cross, or a stake. They were at the execution-place. So, we are all fooled, and Jesus died normally on a stake. It is totally logical.

Just in case you can not imagine St.Justin and St.Irenaeus lying, they are lying all the time. Justin is a fanatic. Irenaeus is inventing and forging. He never speaks the truth. In case you cannot imagine that the crucifixion is fake, the whole gospels are fake. What must you say after 170? That the crucifixion is based on psalm 22 everybody knows. I only wondered who had put in the PIERCED. Now I know.

It was not depicted until 500. Who on earth is going to depict a dying man? For fun? Nobody wanted that. But the church was pushing it ever more.
Since it did not work the church obligated it for churches in 800.
Stauros had a verb. Cross did not. But from 400 on they could begin with crucify, crucifixion etc. Stauros became crux in latin. But crux means stake as well. All those words point to stake. Only we don't know that because we have been led to believe it comes from cross. Finally I have puzzled it out. Problems? Cora
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by GakuseiDon »

cora wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:38 pm Gakuseidon:
There are no cross-shaped stakes. A stake is a single piece of wood in an upright position.
Why not? Why can't there be stakes in a cross-shape, a Y-shape, a tau-shape, or any other type of shape that rests on a single piece of wood in an upright position? I mean, you might be right, but you've presented no evidence for it. If you google images for the English word "stake", you'll see all kinds of images. The commonality is that they are all based on a single piece of wood with a sharp end that is used to keep it in an upright position. Beyond that, there can be all kinds of things attached to that stake. It's still described as a stake. I gave an example earlier. Below is another.

This is called a stake:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com ... f=1&nofb=1
cora wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:38 pmThere was no cross. Justin invented it through forgeries in the OT. I don't know when it started to be used. Anyway cross is not the truth. The cross is a forgery.
The Gospels use "stauros". Does that mean they are not forgeries? What are the implications of that, according to your theory?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by MrMacSon »

Geocalyx wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:31 pm It all works if you consider stuff like Bruce Codex being a FORGERY in the name of THEOLOGY and speak like Trump to all that don't.
When is the Bruce Codex said to be forged?
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by cora »

Gakuseidon,
We are talking about the death-penalty. Do you think they would embellish the stake, or try to make it another form? The death-penalty is at a stauros, a stake. One piece of wood. Evidence: I researched what they did, bones were found in Italy and Israel. I have already described it a few times. Then I read a report of the visit of Constantine's mother to Judea, and what she found confirms exactly what I had already found. This was in the 4th century. Therefore it is not a theory, but a fact. The roman death-penalty has always been on a stake.
We have a fanatic called Justin. he lied together a cross. From exodus and psalm 22. His papers went to Irenaeus in 170. Irenaeus comes with the gospels in 185, he wrote and forged them himself, because the church of rome was not Christian yet, so there were no gospels.
The crucifixion is based on this psalm 22. The word stauros is still there. So what does Irenaeus do? He introduces a cross, in the fake story that Jesus or anybody has to carry his own cross to the execution-place. Nobody ever carried anything of course, these stakes were there. Through this lie we all have to think that Jesus died on a cross, which he didn't. Like that it was done.
In the year 400 the NT was translated in latin. Stauros became crux. From crux crucify comes. Everybody is since thinking that crucifixion is on a cross. But he still only carries the cross. Because crucifixion does not come from cross, but from crux. And crux means stake, like stauros. So crucifixion still means putting on a stake. But since it looks like cross, they began to depict it on a cross, as we know.
You and I and everybody are fucked by Justin and Irenaeus, or the catholic church. We still are. There never has been a cross. And this is not the only fake information in the gospels. Do you understand it now? What the English language does which then not existed and not for another 1000 years, they have to know for themselves, but it has nothing to do with this. Cora.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by GakuseiDon »

cora wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:16 pm Gakuseidon,
We are talking about the death-penalty. Do you think they would embellish the stake, or try to make it another form?
Of course they would. If a cross-shaped stake made death take longer, then I can definitely imagine that they would embellish the stake with a cross-beam. The shape seems to have definitely evolved, since they added a small projection on which to seat the person being punished. I doubt that that was to make the person comfortable! Would they use a different word to "stauros" if the punishment evolved by adding a small projection and/or a cross-beam? That's the question.
cora wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:16 pmThere never has been a cross. And this is not the only fake information in the gospels. Do you understand it now?
The Gospels in Greek use the word "stauros". What do you make of that? Why wasn't that a problem for later Christians if "stauros" COULD NOT mean "a cross-shaped stake"? Wouldn't they say "hang on, a 'stauros' is not a cross"? That to me is the biggest problem with your idea.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Outstretched hands and The Cross

Post by cora »

There was nothing added to the stake. There was a greek word for cross, otherwise it could not have been used by Justin and Irenaeus. So in carrying the cross, people shouting come of that cross. But for the cross itself they could not use it, because that did not exist, it was a stauros (stake).
This appeared around 200 when greek was going out of fashion to be replaced by latin. But the bible was in greek, and the Mass probably also. So who would understand what was being said? The same goes for 400. The bible was translated in latin when the roman empire was falling down and all kinds of barbarians were coming to live there. Who could understand latin?
Nobody could read the bible, because people could not read, and it was solely in the hands of bishops, also for being very expensive to make a copy.
People could only go to church, where everything (and still until I was 9 years old) was in latin. Do you think I ever understood a word? Since then it was translated, but I can tell you that the cross or the crucifixion is not in the mass. More I do not know. Cora.
Post Reply