Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2015, 07:41 PM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
Quote:Generally, it took a couple days or more for the poor bastard to finally die from asphyxiation.

Yeah.... that makes jesus some kind of a pussy.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
04-05-2015, 04:25 PM
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.

Roman records show you are correct. They used an upright pole. The idea was to
nail the hands, or wrest above the head, and the feet with knees slightly bent, allowing the condemned to push their self-up. With the hands above the head, if they could not hold their weight up they would suffocate. In a beaten condition many could not hold their self-up into a breathing position for long. Those who were stronger could take hours to die, thus the Romans would break the legs.
How do I know this for sure? I was there with George Patton.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(19-04-2015 05:49 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I can't really say for sure what shape it would had been. I know there are several variants like stated before, but what I do know is that more than anything, they were not designed to torture or kill per se, they were more meant to be a status symbol of fear. A symbol to let all others look at that person and learn and find an example in looking at them to see what would happen if they did the same crimes.

Now, Brazen Bull! THAT was a torture / execution device. With the cross, you were more likely to dehydrate to death before dying of anything else.


Yeah -- that one is nightmare inducing.......

Ya gotta wonder what it was like to have drinks with the guy who created that one.......

Charlie Manson would have gotten the creeps....

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

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
04-05-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(04-05-2015 05:55 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(19-04-2015 05:49 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I can't really say for sure what shape it would had been. I know there are several variants like stated before, but what I do know is that more than anything, they were not designed to torture or kill per se, they were more meant to be a status symbol of fear. A symbol to let all others look at that person and learn and find an example in looking at them to see what would happen if they did the same crimes.

Now, Brazen Bull! THAT was a torture / execution device. With the cross, you were more likely to dehydrate to death before dying of anything else.


Yeah -- that one is nightmare inducing.......

Ya gotta wonder what it was like to have drinks with the guy who created that one.......

Charlie Manson would have gotten the creeps....

The first guy to bake in the Brazen Bull WAS the creator Laugh out load




“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 06:24 PM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(04-05-2015 06:16 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(04-05-2015 05:55 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Yeah -- that one is nightmare inducing.......

Ya gotta wonder what it was like to have drinks with the guy who created that one.......

Charlie Manson would have gotten the creeps....

The first guy to bake in the Brazen Bull WAS the creator Laugh out load

Well that thing is fucked up Gasp

(30-03-2015 08:47 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  IT'S THE HOLY GHOST oooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(19-04-2015 07:41 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Generally, it took a couple days or more for the poor bastard to finally die from asphyxiation.

Yeah.... that makes jesus some kind of a pussy.

Jesus death on the cross is doubtful. Jesus was on the cross for only 3 hours and cruxifiction victims lasted many hours on the cross, on average between 1-2 days.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2015, 04:21 PM
RE: Crucifixion from an engineering standpoint
(17-04-2015 11:21 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  ... In general they did not go through that much trouble with criminals. Common criminals were expended in the arena for the amusement of the crowd. [...]

So when the Romans did crucify someone it was because they were making a point and that point was "DON'T FUCK WITH US OR YOU WILL BE HERE." If the Romans had wanted to kill "jesus" they would have run him through with a sword. They sure as hell would not have gone through the trouble of crucifying him only to allow him to be taken down for a proper burial...

There is a theory that Jesus was trying to foment a nonviolent revolution against Rome. He failed in part because the people who wanted to overthrow Rome preferred a violent revolution.

If Jesus was a revolutionary, that would explain why the Romans crucified him rather than just killing him.

In any case, he never would have been allowed burial, since being eaten by animals was part of the degradation.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2016, 10:17 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???

People have hypothesized that the Romans crucified prisoners on a 2-piece 'T' shaped cross consisting of the crossbeam (patibulum) and an upright stake (stipes). The victim was forced to carry the patibulum to the execution site where the stipes was a permanent feature (possibly even an existing tree). The prisoner was tied or nailed to the patibulum through the wrists and was then hoisted up with the prisoner hanging from it and affixed to the stipes. This could be done easily by a squad sized execution team.

The TV series Spartacus features several fairly realistic crucifixion scenes in it using this technique.

As for the bodies left to rot on the cross, I guess that was up to the local governors or Roman courts which handed down the death sentence - even a doomed slave's dominus (master). The only known remains of a Roman crucifixion victim was buried, so it had been done. The Gospels state that the Pharisees did not want bodies left on the crosses during Passover; so perhaps Pilate or similar governors granted these request, at the behest of a VIP.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: