Was the cross actually a tesseract?

Could it have been fiberglass reinforced titanium. Was it made on a weekday or weekend ? Could it have been designed with a tree bark appearance ? These and many more questions........... America wants to know... What color was it, and who was responsible for the transportation to the hill where Jesus was Crucified ? These and many more questions await answers, or at least evidence of authorship.

Do topics loaded with questions and no answers provide information ? If you can't answer them with proof, dazzle them with bull stuff.

a reply to: Plotus

Well then, let's go ahead and get rid of 90% of the topics on these boards because they don't have definitive answers either. Because that's kinda what conspiracies are, questions that are brought up without definitive answers or proof.

Sorry you're so against brainstorming and thinking outside the box.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I love the Dali Painting, to me, it represents that we only really see a slim fragment of reality, and that Christ died for the full and true reality. This infers that there are aspects of Christ's crucifixion that are beyond our current understandings.

However, the actual cross was made of two pieces of wood, built by ancient Romans and erected on a hill just outside the city of Jerusalem.

The irony that the hill and the tree were created by Jesus and were the implements of His torture brings home the poignancy of His sacrifice on our behalf.

whats funny is the cross the romans used didnt have a place to rest the back of the head against. it was a T shape.

OK, tradition for 2 Millennia is that the cross was not a T.

Some have said that the cross was just a post because it is described as a "stauros" in Greek. Yet Simon the Cyrene was co-opted to assist Jesus in carrying the cross and the word used is "patibulum", which is a cross-piece, a second piece of wood.

So, then we must have either the T or a † shape.

Matthew 27:37 says: They placed above his head the charge against him. It read, “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews".

If the cross was a T, then how could they place the sign above His head? Did they make if float there in space?

It is therefore reasonable to accept that Jesus was crucified on a † shaped cross.

It seems you and me are both half right. Read this link.2 forms of crucifiction

If Jesus was crucified on a stake, the charge would have been placed above His hands, not His head, as His hands would be immediately above His head. Also, only a single nail would actually be required to affix Jesus hands in place. Therefore the fact that Thomas referred to the the plural "nails" through Jesus "hands" (John 20: 25), would argue against a single nail through both hands.

Similarly, Jesus, speaking of Peter the Apostles' death, uses the allusion of having his hands "stretched out" (eketino) (John 21: 17-19). Peter was crucified "like Jesus" (Tertullian, Scorpiace xv.3).

Roman Crucifixions used several types of cross, an X, a T, a stake, a sharpened stake (for impaling) and a traditional latin cross with a cross piece a little way down the central stake. Sometimes they did mass crucifixions with many different types of cross at the same time.

Heres the problem. if its through the HANDS and UP in th e AIR with arms outstretched the body will fall off because th e weight will rip the hands loose. UNLESS the cross was ground level.

I have a novel idea.... how's about a story with substance, not the plethora of Youtube conspiracy videos that offer zero information, and instead pretend to be informative. No investigation is needed to ask questions, moreover it's a stalling tactic often times. I'm curious how you arrived at the number 90% ? Not really, it got pulled out of the air. That's not the point, never the less some of the more naieve members believe it a legit piece of information. It's not a personal attack mind you, but some due diligence ..... ought to be required. After all what's that banner say ? Deny Ignorance.

If the Bible is to be believed, the cross was simply two lengths of tree logs, possibly with a couple notches to fit together as a cross. Romans for the most part were pretty clever, and I doubt they went to extremes to build complex geometric shapes in order to kill a dude.... Which is all they saw it as. I do believe they would have arrived at simplicity rather than complexity to do a run of the mill (to them) crucifiction. It seems the world hungers for anything but the truth.

a reply to: Plotus

It's about what the cross symbolizes, not how it was made or what it was made out of. If you had read the OP you would have realized that, or if you did read it then you missed the point entirely.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I love the Dali Painting, to me, it represents that we only really see a slim fragment of reality, and that Christ died for the full and true reality. This infers that there are aspects of Christ's crucifixion that are beyond our current understandings.

However, the actual cross was made of two pieces of wood, built by ancient Romans and erected on a hill just outside the city of Jerusalem.

The irony that the hill and the tree were created by Jesus and were the implements of His torture brings home the poignancy of His sacrifice on our behalf.

whats funny is the cross the romans used didnt have a place to rest the back of the head against. it was a T shape.

OK, tradition for 2 Millennia is that the cross was not a T.

Some have said that the cross was just a post because it is described as a "stauros" in Greek. Yet Simon the Cyrene was co-opted to assist Jesus in carrying the cross and the word used is "patibulum", which is a cross-piece, a second piece of wood.

So, then we must have either the T or a † shape.

Matthew 27:37 says: They placed above his head the charge against him. It read, “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews".

If the cross was a T, then how could they place the sign above His head? Did they make if float there in space?

It is therefore reasonable to accept that Jesus was crucified on a † shaped cross.

It seems you and me are both half right. Read this link.2 forms of crucifiction

If Jesus was crucified on a stake, the charge would have been placed above His hands, not His head, as His hands would be immediately above His head. Also, only a single nail would actually be required to affix Jesus hands in place. Therefore the fact that Thomas referred to the the plural "nails" through Jesus "hands" (John 20: 25), would argue against a single nail through both hands.

Similarly, Jesus, speaking of Peter the Apostles' death, uses the allusion of having his hands "stretched out" (eketino) (John 21: 17-19). Peter was crucified "like Jesus" (Tertullian, Scorpiace xv.3).

Roman Crucifixions used several types of cross, an X, a T, a stake, a sharpened stake (for impaling) and a traditional latin cross with a cross piece a little way down the central stake. Sometimes they did mass crucifixions with many different types of cross at the same time.

Heres the problem. if its through the HANDS and UP in th e AIR with arms outstretched the body will fall off because th e weight will rip the hands loose. UNLESS the cross was ground level.

But we do know that the Romans crucified people with their arms outstretched and they didn't fall off the cross.

We also, unfortunately, know that Islamic groups have crucified several Christians with outstretched hands (probably not nailed there, though) and there is no great force causing the bodies to 'fall off'.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: gpols

I don't think Jesus was literally crucified on a tesseract, only that the religious symbol of the cross represents the tesseract. This is a thread about symbolism, not literal history.

I thought the only reasonable way to crucify someone was by using the X form; as a heel was discovered with a Roman nail embedded in such a way into the heel that supports the idea the feet are supported by the ground; just nailed to the bottom extensions of the X , not possible with the T or cross form as the physics of hanging a dead weight deny this as even possible; unless you tied them up first to secure them (gravity) then nailed them afterwards (too much work)! Also, the point was for the victim to suffer 2 or three days dehydration before passing. If hung on a T or cross would die with an hour due to the body angle; of suffocation.

nice thread, but I think you're reaching.

originally posted by: chr0naut

But we do know that the Romans crucified people with their arms outstretched and they didn't fall off the cross.
We also, unfortunately, know that Islamic groups have crucified several Christians with outstretched hands (probably not nailed there, though) and there is no great force causing the bodies to 'fall off'.

Strong force Gravity could allow for this 'falling off' phenom.

a reply to: ParasuvO

In this reality you may be right. But the only comment I have with symbology is like it's pareidolia...you can find meaning on anything if you want to. Drawing parallels with history and the math and cosmos and all that jazz...I get that. It's just that all things made by humans are inspired by an actual something else...like the cross...or birds inspired the first engineers to try to build a flying contraption...

Point is...it doesn't necessarily have any deep meaning. You can draw the parallels in history all you want. Some can be attributed to direct influence but others are just stretching it to serve their theories.

In fact, since we can see that absolutely nothing changed since this took place in regards to how the world operates, we KNOW that the crucifiction story has nothing to do with really, anything at all.

Actually...more than a billion people disagree with that remark. Not to mention the dead Romans...current Jews and Muslims...Warren Buffet, the world's richest man Bill Gates...the Byzantine Empire...Attila and his Huns...Columbus...Gandhi...

a reply to: IQPREREQUISITE

Apparently religious iconography could be your saving grace or death depending upon who disagrees with your belief system. Christians were killing each other over disagreements regarding the contents of the communal 'You are Christ' Eucharist cup.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I love the Dali Painting, to me, it represents that we only really see a slim fragment of reality, and that Christ died for the full and true reality. This infers that there are aspects of Christ's crucifixion that are beyond our current understandings.

However, the actual cross was made of two pieces of wood, built by ancient Romans and erected on a hill just outside the city of Jerusalem.

The irony that the hill and the tree were created by Jesus and were the implements of His torture brings home the poignancy of His sacrifice on our behalf.

whats funny is the cross the romans used didnt have a place to rest the back of the head against. it was a T shape.

OK, tradition for 2 Millennia is that the cross was not a T.

Some have said that the cross was just a post because it is described as a "stauros" in Greek. Yet Simon the Cyrene was co-opted to assist Jesus in carrying the cross and the word used is "patibulum", which is a cross-piece, a second piece of wood.

So, then we must have either the T or a † shape.

Matthew 27:37 says: They placed above his head the charge against him. It read, “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews".

If the cross was a T, then how could they place the sign above His head? Did they make if float there in space?

It is therefore reasonable to accept that Jesus was crucified on a † shaped cross.

It seems you and me are both half right. Read this link.2 forms of crucifiction

If Jesus was crucified on a stake, the charge would have been placed above His hands, not His head, as His hands would be immediately above His head. Also, only a single nail would actually be required to affix Jesus hands in place. Therefore the fact that Thomas referred to the the plural "nails" through Jesus "hands" (John 20: 25), would argue against a single nail through both hands.

Similarly, Jesus, speaking of Peter the Apostles' death, uses the allusion of having his hands "stretched out" (eketino) (John 21: 17-19). Peter was crucified "like Jesus" (Tertullian, Scorpiace xv.3).

Roman Crucifixions used several types of cross, an X, a T, a stake, a sharpened stake (for impaling) and a traditional latin cross with a cross piece a little way down the central stake. Sometimes they did mass crucifixions with many different types of cross at the same time.

Heres the problem. if its through the HANDS and UP in th e AIR with arms outstretched the body will fall off because th e weight will rip the hands loose. UNLESS the cross was ground level.

But we do know that the Romans crucified people with their arms outstretched and they didn't fall off the cross.

We also, unfortunately, know that Islamic groups have crucified several Christians with outstretched hands (probably not nailed there, though) and there is no great force causing the bodies to 'fall off'.

Here. read this. This explains it. Apparently hands back then also included the wrist.
Crucifiction explanation for bodyweight issue

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I love the Dali Painting, to me, it represents that we only really see a slim fragment of reality, and that Christ died for the full and true reality. This infers that there are aspects of Christ's crucifixion that are beyond our current understandings.

However, the actual cross was made of two pieces of wood, built by ancient Romans and erected on a hill just outside the city of Jerusalem.

The irony that the hill and the tree were created by Jesus and were the implements of His torture brings home the poignancy of His sacrifice on our behalf.

whats funny is the cross the romans used didnt have a place to rest the back of the head against. it was a T shape.

OK, tradition for 2 Millennia is that the cross was not a T.

Some have said that the cross was just a post because it is described as a "stauros" in Greek. Yet Simon the Cyrene was co-opted to assist Jesus in carrying the cross and the word used is "patibulum", which is a cross-piece, a second piece of wood.

So, then we must have either the T or a † shape.

Matthew 27:37 says: They placed above his head the charge against him. It read, “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews".

If the cross was a T, then how could they place the sign above His head? Did they make if float there in space?

It is therefore reasonable to accept that Jesus was crucified on a † shaped cross.

It seems you and me are both half right. Read this link.2 forms of crucifiction

If Jesus was crucified on a stake, the charge would have been placed above His hands, not His head, as His hands would be immediately above His head. Also, only a single nail would actually be required to affix Jesus hands in place. Therefore the fact that Thomas referred to the the plural "nails" through Jesus "hands" (John 20: 25), would argue against a single nail through both hands.

Similarly, Jesus, speaking of Peter the Apostles' death, uses the allusion of having his hands "stretched out" (eketino) (John 21: 17-19). Peter was crucified "like Jesus" (Tertullian, Scorpiace xv.3).

Roman Crucifixions used several types of cross, an X, a T, a stake, a sharpened stake (for impaling) and a traditional latin cross with a cross piece a little way down the central stake. Sometimes they did mass crucifixions with many different types of cross at the same time.

Heres the problem. if its through the HANDS and UP in th e AIR with arms outstretched the body will fall off because th e weight will rip the hands loose. UNLESS the cross was ground level.

But we do know that the Romans crucified people with their arms outstretched and they didn't fall off the cross.

We also, unfortunately, know that Islamic groups have crucified several Christians with outstretched hands (probably not nailed there, though) and there is no great force causing the bodies to 'fall off'.

Here. read this. This explains it. Apparently hands back then also included the wrist.
Crucifiction explanation for bodyweight issue

While I agree that it is likely that Jesus was pierced through the wrists, the idea that the skin would not have the structural strength to hold the body are negated by the fact that we can hold ourselves up by our fingertips when mountain climbing. Our skin does not break, nor do our fingers get ripped off.

The Mandan Indians of America had a "rite of passage" ceremony where they suspended their bodies on hooks (usually two, through the chest) in a ceremony called Okipa. The hooks did not tear out of the flesh and are sufficient to raise the off the ground, indicating that the skin is resilient enough to support body weight.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Mandan Indians of America had a "rite of passage" ceremony where they suspended their bodies on hooks (usually two, through the chest) in a ceremony called Okipa.

Yes. As seen in A Man Called Horse. It's also become a bit of a fad.
info.painfulpleasures.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

Getting a nail driven through your hand and then having your body weight pull on the wound long after your muscles give out on you is a bit different than hanging on a ledge by your fingertips. Stick nails through your fingertips while hanging off a ledge and see what happens, you may not have fingertips anymore.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

The Mandan Indians of America had a "rite of passage" ceremony where they suspended their bodies on hooks (usually two, through the chest) in a ceremony called Okipa.

Yes. As seen in A Man Called Horse. It's also become a bit of a fad.
info.painfulpleasures.com...

Not my idea of fun.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: chr0naut

Getting a nail driven through your hand and then having your body weight pull on the wound long after your muscles give out on you is a bit different than hanging on a ledge by your fingertips. Stick nails through your fingertips while hanging off a ledge and see what happens, you may not have fingertips anymore.

Honestly, I'm fairly sure that if you'd have had a bit more sense crucified into you when you were younger, you wouldn't hold to these unreasonable suppositions that you have today.

IMHO, that's the problem with kids today, no discipline like the good old days!

Love the painting!

It is said that Jesus was given a psychedelic brew that caused him to undergo ego death. Then he was reborn as a new thinking being. It was his twin I'Issa (Judas) that was physically crucified in his place.

Ancient secret societies used to meditate upon the form of the tesseract to enter other dimensions. My thought is that the shape acted as a key into a lock. It would serve as a mandala that would alter consciousnesses naturally. It possibly allows the observer to enter the fourth dimension ie. outside normal space time.