Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2015, 07:33 AM
Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
While on the exercise bike today I came up with a thought (exercise bikes are boooring...)

Isn't the christian idea of a crucifixion with an upright cross (classical visual) a piss poor bit of engineering????

If you've ever tried putting up a flagpole -- you know that it's really tough to force it up -- and if you had a guy nailed to it flailing about (as much as possible) it'd make it very hard to get into an upright position...

It'd be much easier to nail a guy to an X shaped cross, then use both bottom legs as fulcrum to hoist your victim up....

....
Or is this god person just a crappy engineer who prefers form over function???

I have to wonder if upright crosses are even really historically accurate???

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:31 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 07:33 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  While on the exercise bike today I came up with a thought (exercise bikes are boooring...)

Isn't the christian idea of a crucifixion with an upright cross (classical visual) a piss poor bit of engineering????

If you've ever tried putting up a flagpole -- you know that it's really tough to force it up -- and if you had a guy nailed to it flailing about (as much as possible) it'd make it very hard to get into an upright position...

It'd be much easier to nail a guy to an X shaped cross, then use both bottom legs as fulcrum to hoist your victim up....

....
Or is this god person just a crappy engineer who prefers form over function???

I have to wonder if upright crosses are even really historically accurate???

The upright portions were pre sunk into the ground and reused. Remember this is not god but Rome, god may be a piss poor engineer but Roman engineering is still standing 2 millennium later.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Revenant77x's post
17-04-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
They're quite historically accurate. The Romans crucified tens of thousands of people. Although most crosses weren't actually crosses like in Christian iconography; usually they just used poles, but T, X, and Y structures weren't entirely unknown.

And they put them up by digging holes and dropping the shafts into them. That's a pretty easy job for a half dozen guys, when the person on the cross can't move at all.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-04-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 08:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  They're quite historically accurate. The Romans crucified tens of thousands of people. Although most crosses weren't actually crosses like in Christian iconography; usually they just used poles, but T, X, and Y structures weren't entirely unknown.

And they put them up by digging holes and dropping the shafts into them. That's a pretty easy job for a half dozen guys, when the person on the cross can't move at all.

Yeah,
  1. Nail (or tie) guy to cross
  2. Lift cross upright and plant in hole
  3. suffering, agony, death
  4. Prophet.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like Chas's post
17-04-2015, 08:40 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 08:31 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 07:33 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  While on the exercise bike today I came up with a thought (exercise bikes are boooring...)

Isn't the christian idea of a crucifixion with an upright cross (classical visual) a piss poor bit of engineering????

If you've ever tried putting up a flagpole -- you know that it's really tough to force it up -- and if you had a guy nailed to it flailing about (as much as possible) it'd make it very hard to get into an upright position...

It'd be much easier to nail a guy to an X shaped cross, then use both bottom legs as fulcrum to hoist your victim up....

....
Or is this god person just a crappy engineer who prefers form over function???

I have to wonder if upright crosses are even really historically accurate???

The upright portions were pre sunk into the ground and reused. Remember this is not god but Rome, god may be a piss poor engineer but Roman engineering is still standing 2 millennium later.

Reusing the upright is fine -- but still quite a job to haul a 50-60 kilo person up onto an upright.....

It'd also be simpler to hang the person inverted ----

I've hung hundreds of cows, pigs and deer --- the easiest way is to punch a hole in the rear haunch and use the hamstring to hold the gambel (what you use for hanging a butchered animal)

Nails through the hand wouldn't work -- it'd tear out. A wooden peg in between the ulna and radius would probably work...

.......

I'm still betting an X shaped crucifixion would be easier....

I think it's a problem of fashion......

An X hanging on your neck wouldn't be quite as visually pleasing as the Roman Crucifix......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Nails through the hand wouldn't work -- it'd tear out. A wooden peg in between the ulna and radius would probably work...
Yeah, the depiction of nails through the palms is commonly used, but inaccurate.

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
We'll need to run some tests for statistical analysis.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
17-04-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Reusing the upright is fine -- but still quite a job to haul a 50-60 kilo person up onto an upright.....

Not for six or eight people. If that many labourers can lift a car I don't think a person and a log are going to prevent an obstacle...

Wait, you seem to have it backwards. They tied people to the cross and then propped it upright.

(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Nails through the hand wouldn't work -- it'd tear out. A wooden peg in between the ulna and radius would probably work...

They did, in fact, do that. Although usually they just tied people. But, the postures were basically what we'd now call "stress positions" anyway, so shitty regardless.

(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I'm still betting an X shaped crucifixion would be easier....

I think it's a problem of fashion......

An X hanging on your neck wouldn't be quite as visually pleasing as the Roman Crucifix......

You can't fit an X into the ground the same way. There's no shaft to bury.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 08:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Reusing the upright is fine -- but still quite a job to haul a 50-60 kilo person up onto an upright.....

Not for six or eight people. If that many labourers can lift a car I don't think a person and a log are going to prevent an obstacle...

(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Nails through the hand wouldn't work -- it'd tear out. A wooden peg in between the ulna and radius would probably work...

They did, in fact, do that.

Actual nails were reserved for the worst cases, though; easier just to tie people. Although, the posture were basically what we'd now call "stress positions" anyway, so shitty regardless.

(17-04-2015 08:40 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I'm still betting an X shaped crucifixion would be easier....

I think it's a problem of fashion......

An X hanging on your neck wouldn't be quite as visually pleasing as the Roman Crucifix......

You can't fit an X into the ground the same way. There's no shaft to bury.

true... you'd simply rest it on a pole on an angle.....

I guess I'm looking at it on an improvised basis..... I guess institutionalized it's a different matter....

That, and I always look at a job as how I could do it on my own....

I'm just a regular do-it-yourself kinda guy...

Cool

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 08:50 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  ...
That, and I always look at a job as how I could do it on my own....

I'm just a regular do-it-yourself kinda guy...

Cool

Well... good luck with that but I think perhaps self-crucifixion would be beyond anyone's capability.

Let us know how you get on.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: