Snafutopia Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Recently I attended the Baptist church with my husband. The pastor/preacher of the church is a font of misinformation, especially when it comes to history. For example, in one sermon he stated that the Roman Empire never fell. In the same sermon, he said that the Roman Empire was the last empire, and that there have been no other empires since. These are just two examples of many. Needless to say, whenever I attend church I'm astonished at the amount of misinformation this guy dishes out. More recently, he preached about how "Simon of Cyrenia" carried Jesus's cross (Matthew gospel chapter 27 verse 32, Mark gospel chapter 15 verse 21, Luke gospel chapter 23 verse 26). According to the preacher, the reason Jesus didn't carry his own cross is that "back in those days" if a condemned person carried their own cross, they were admitting that they deserved the punishment. But if they wanted to "proclaim their innocence" they got somebody else to carry the cross for them. This makes no sense to me, because I can't imagine the Romans giving any condemned prisoner such a choice -- "Do you want to carry your own cross, or do you want somebody else to carry it for you?" (Of course the preacher ignored the John gospel chapter 19 verse 17 where it says Jesus carried his own cross.) So, is this just more of the preacher's crap? Or is it an actual fact? I've been trying to find out. Does anybody here know for sure? I've written to a couple of professors who specialize in the history of ancient Rome, and to a Jewish historian. The latter replied saying he's never heard of such a thing, but recommended some authors, so I'm doing a bit of googling and thought I'd ask you guys. Thanks in advance for any info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Recently I attended the Baptist church with my husband. The pastor/preacher of the church is a font of misinformation, especially when it comes to history. For example, in one sermon he stated that the Roman Empire never fell. In the same sermon, he said that the Roman Empire was the last empire, and that there have been no other empires since. These are just two examples of many. Needless to say, whenever I attend church I'm astonished at the amount of misinformation this guy dishes out. More recently, he preached about how "Simon of Cyrenia" carried Jesus's cross (Matthew gospel chapter 27 verse 32, Mark gospel chapter 15 verse 21, Luke gospel chapter 23 verse 26). According to the preacher, the reason Jesus didn't carry his own cross is that "back in those days" if a condemned person carried their own cross, they were admitting that they deserved the punishment. But if they wanted to "proclaim their innocence" they got somebody else to carry the cross for them. This makes no sense to me, because I can't imagine the Romans giving any condemned prisoner such a choice -- "Do you want to carry your own cross, or do you want somebody else to carry it for you?" (Of course the preacher ignored the John gospel chapter 19 verse 17 where it says Jesus carried his own cross.) So, is this just more of the preacher's crap? Or is it an actual fact? I've been trying to find out. Does anybody here know for sure? I've written to a couple of professors who specialize in the history of ancient Rome, and to a Jewish historian. The latter replied saying he's never heard of such a thing, but recommended some authors, so I'm doing a bit of googling and thought I'd ask you guys. Thanks in advance for any info. You bring up a good point - the gospels disagree over what happened in the life of Jesus and his disciples. The real question is, why does anyone think any of that happened at all? ut despite the symbolic significance the preacher gives it, the fact that Jesus supposedly received a beating with a leather whip with nine chords and bones/nails tied to the end of each leather strip probably would have left him too weak to carry his cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snafutopia Posted July 21, 2009 Author Share Posted July 21, 2009 Understood. And I'm as skeptical about the whole thing as you are. But what I need to find out is: 1. were condemned prisoners really given the choice as explained by the preacher? 2. was carrying a cross to one's own crucifixion really an admission of guilt,and conversely was having one's cross carried by somebody else really a proclamation of innocence? Specifically, was carrying one's own cross or not carrying one's own cross understood by the general population "in Bible days" as indicating the prisoner's assertion as to guilt/innocence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The Roman Empire is gone. Of course it is, since we are not under the rule or law of some Judicial system located in Rome. I heard this as a Christian too, and what they usually meant (at least back then) was that the spirit of the Roman empire had not gone. Physically, it is gone, but in "spirit" it's still in control over society. In other words, it's the idea that modernity and the modern state can be traced back to the Roman culture and state. Today I think it's an oversimplification. Most of political theory was developed after the Roman empire, and not copied. So many things are different, so it's just polemical speech to make the comparison. Britain was an empire, so I'm not sure where he got the idea there were none after!? He never heard of the "British Empire?" Google it. You can get maps of all the countries they ruled. I mean, it's was many times larger than the Roman, so to say no one existed after them is just dumb. 1. were condemned prisoners really given the choice as explained by the preacher? 2. was carrying a cross to one's own crucifixion really an admission of guilt,and conversely was having one's cross carried by somebody else really a proclamation of innocence? Specifically, was carrying one's own cross or not carrying one's own cross understood by the general population "in Bible days" as indicating the prisoner's assertion as to guilt/innocence? Most likely it's just Christian inventiveness in action again. I've noticed that Christians make up stuff to support their religious beliefs. It's not enough with history, because it doesn't provide them with all the myths they need, so they come up with more. Personally, this is the first time I hear this idea. I think it's made up. (But I could be wrong) Actually, I read somewhere that the whole "carrying the cross" is most likely not possible. The whole cross weighted probably 300 lbs, and the crossbeam was part of the structure and not loose, so nah, no convicts carrying crosses at all, is more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 21, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2009 Chances are it's crap. I'm no Roman Empire historian, but I never heard anything like that before. Doesn't even make sense. The Romans didn't invent crucifixion, but they may have perfected it. An old pastor from my childhood said something I never forgot. When the spear pierced the side (heart) water came out. When someone's heart is broken (emotionally) the blood separates into its components, hence the clear water-like liquid. WTF??? Of course, none of the writers actually witnessed the purported event, so . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Understood. And I'm as skeptical about the whole thing as you are. But what I need to find out is: 1. were condemned prisoners really given the choice as explained by the preacher? 2. was carrying a cross to one's own crucifixion really an admission of guilt,and conversely was having one's cross carried by somebody else really a proclamation of innocence? Specifically, was carrying one's own cross or not carrying one's own cross understood by the general population "in Bible days" as indicating the prisoner's assertion as to guilt/innocence? I don't recall this described by any of historians of the day. Maybe they mentioned it and I missed it (since I wasn't looking for it) but it seems like something that would stand out in my mind. So I'm leaning towards it didn't happen. It could be something that was described and/or invented by a later author or maybe it was from some isolated incident or the like (something like this wouldn't have to be a universal rule across the empire but there's not enough information to say that it was even isolated to just Pilate). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I can't find anything at all to corroborate this idea. It sounds like just more crap. I did find a number of sites which agree that the cross was actually made in two parts, the upright or stipes, which was permanently stuck in the ground, and the crossbeam or patibulum, which is the part that was carried by the condemned prisoner. There is no indication that the prisoner was given any choice in the matter of carrying the patibulum. Since crucifixion was reserved for particular heinous crimes, it is difficult to believe that the Romans would have given prisoners any choice in the matter at all. If the Bible is to be believed, Simon was ordered to carry the cross by Roman soldiers because Jesus had been beaten half to death and was too weak to carry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 An old pastor from my childhood said something I never forgot. When the spear pierced the side (heart) water came out. When someone's heart is broken (emotionally) the blood separates into its components, hence the clear water-like liquid. WTF??? Is there any medical explanation behind this idea at all? That blood and water separates, wouldn't that be a sign of actual being dead already? One of those things the crime scene team use to determine which way the body originally were positioned. The blood sinks to the bottom. I don't know. It would be interesting to hear some biologist or scientist view on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 An old pastor from my childhood said something I never forgot. When the spear pierced the side (heart) water came out. When someone's heart is broken (emotionally) the blood separates into its components, hence the clear water-like liquid. WTF??? Is there any medical explanation behind this idea at all? That blood and water separates, wouldn't that be a sign of actual being dead already? One of those things the crime scene team use to determine which way the body originally were positioned. The blood sinks to the bottom. I don't know. It would be interesting to hear some biologist or scientist view on this. When I was still in I did hear that this was true and this was confirmed by an actual MD that yes blood and water separates after death. You wouldn't want to drink it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 21, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted July 21, 2009 confirmed by an actual MD that yes blood and water separates after death. His claim was that the separation was due to the "broken heart" suffered for mankind. That was the goofy part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShallowByThyGame Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 By the 4th century the Roman empire has split into the Eastern and Western Roman empires, based in Rome and Constantinople respectfully. The Eastern Empire fell in 476 AD to Germanic tribes, who eventually formed the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne a few centuries later, but that was certainly different than the Roman Empire as the Imperial throne was not in Rome. The city of Rome was under Papal control at that point. But Historians agree that the (Eastern) Roman Empire fell when the German Chieftain Odoacer took the crown from the last Emperor who surrendered completely. To quote wikipedia Since, as a barbarian, he was not allowed the title of Emperor, Odoacer returned the Imperial insignia to Constantinople and ruled as King in Italy. The Western Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire, which fell in 1453 to the Ottoman Empire. As for no other empires since, that is lunacy. Why wouldn't the British, Chinese, Spanish, or Japanese empires count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 When I was still in I did hear that this was true and this was confirmed by an actual MD that yes blood and water separates after death. You wouldn't want to drink it though. Ok. So that part is a fact, so then the question is, could this happen to a person who is still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 An old pastor from my childhood said something I never forgot. When the spear pierced the side (heart) water came out. When someone's heart is broken (emotionally) the blood separates into its components, hence the clear water-like liquid. WTF??? Hasn't any human being anywhere in the world ever had a blood sample taken right after they lost a loved one, or when they lost a life-long job, or for some other reason had a "broken heart"? One would think that with all the refugee camps and concentration camps of the twentieth century, along with intervention by medical teams from well-to-do countries, surely some broken hearted person had a blood sample taken at some point. If blood and water separated due to a broken heart, we'd know about it. The very theory is about as fucked-up and twistedly distorted as only fundy theology could make it. My guess is the guy was inspired to say it (a.k.a. made it up) as the words came out of his mouth. Or possibly he had this revelation one day when he still had some child-like wisdom left in his brain and was meditating--like I often did--on how both water and blood could have come out of the wound. I was told that "We all drink water, you numbskull!" Well, okay, but how could they differentiate the two coming out of the same wound? Something does not make sense. I'm reading Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained. Only in the light of the fantasical does it make sense. And fantasy is not particular when it comes to gods. I can imagine a tall tale in an elementary reader in the 1960s depicting this wonderful spring with water and blood that magically differentiated so that the witch could use the blood to magically heal some mortal wound or other and the water to save people dying of thirst. Christianity just decided to extend this to the spiritual realm beyond what did the OT and other tall tales then and now. The way I understand it is that when the Roman Empire fell and the Alexandrian Library in Egypt was burned to the ground, all the learning acquired and recorded by several thousand years of scholars was destroyed and totally lost. The so-called orthodox Christians did this, i.e. they killed off the Gnostics and burned their books along with all the other books of learning. This included the great works of the ancient Greek philosophers. The schools were all closed, too. Only that which supported orthodox Christianity was allowed to remain north of the Arab/Muslim lands. The next thousand years in Europe are called the Dark Ages. The Muslims were the liberal cutting-edge scholars and scientists. They preserved and translated the Greek philosophers into Arabic. Later, Europeans translated them into Latin, and much later into English and other European languages. From around 463 to about 1453 (I don't know exact dates) Europeans had only the Bible--as taught to them by illiterate village priests and paintings on cathedrals, folk religion passed down from time immemorial, nature, and their imaginations. Who doesn't see something moving in the bushes out of the tail of their eye right around the time of day when it's too dark to see clearly? Who doesn't also feel something distinctly other-worldly at the very same time, and possibly also hear a sound to go along with it? GHOSTS--AND GODS--ARE REAL!?!?! One or more thousand years before Socrates (who lived about 500 years before Christ), the philosopher scientists had already been making cause and effect connections, i.e. thinking critically as in when you touch fire you get burned and when you fall into the river you get wet. Some of them had developed extremely sophisticated systems of abstract theory. Some of them expressly and intentionally displaced the ancient gods because they were immoral; also, belief in the gods caused so much grief and harm to humanity. Plato invented a system to include the supernatural, and Aristotle revised and retained it, which is why the Christians love them so much. (Some of these ideas come from Pat Duffy Hucheon's Leaving the Cave.) It was these philosophers that caused late medieval European thinkers like Galileo and Keppler (1400s-1500s) to investigate the universe with a much more critical eye. They had to face down a thousand years of religious superstition. This critical questioning and investigation brought about the Enlightenment. By about 1750, the major churches of Europe (not just the pope and collegues) had to take science seriously. A century later, when Darwin published Origin of the Species and Descent of Man, the smaller churches in North America had to take their stands. In 1925, there was the mock Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee. In 2001 was the attack of one fundy religion on another and the battle contines to rage. In about 2004 was the Dover Trial on Intelligent Design. Disclaimer: I did not look up the dates and events for this post. Better not quote me. My point is to provide some context for the myth of blood and water dividing and how it might make sense in that context. I'm probably just blowing so much hot air... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 When I was still in I did hear that this was true and this was confirmed by an actual MD that yes blood and water separates after death. You wouldn't want to drink it though. Yup. After death the solid particles (blood cells et al) start sinking to the bottom of whatever they are in, be it vein or lab container, leaving only the plasma up above - the liquid base of blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Ok. So that part is a fact, so then the question is, could this happen to a person who is still alive? Absofuckinglutely not. As long as you're alive and your heart is pumping, the whole mess of blood is in continuous motion. No chance for liquid and solid to separate. It's like muddy water - if you don't touch a bucket of it for a long time, eventually you'll find separation, but keep stirring it and you'll never see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Exactly, one has to be dead in order for the plasma to separate from the blood cells. You can tell how long someone has been dead by seeing the dark spots at the bottom of the body (depending on how the body was positioned at death). And the last time I checked, plasma is not water nor does it look like clear water. Plasma does contain elements of water (I was going to be brainiack and say dihydrogen monoxide but that would be douchy of me), but it also contains other elements. A side effect of congestive heart failure is a collection of fluid in the heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 confirmed by an actual MD that yes blood and water separates after death. His claim was that the separation was due to the "broken heart" suffered for mankind. That was the goofy part. I was taking that as a given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 ...the last time I checked, plasma is not water nor does it look like clear water. Plasma does contain elements of water (I was going to be brainiack and say dihydrogen monoxide but that would be douchy of me), but it also contains other elements... Well to be fair, if the primitive people of babblical times had seen blood plasma somewhere, I could imagine they'd have called it water. But that is about all what's plausible in the whole claim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Roman Empire was the last empire? What was the British Empire? A bad dream? Holy Roman Empire? Ottoman Empire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Roman Empire . . . last empire . . .my memory banks are slowly heating up. . . thinking of my old premillenial dispensational theology days. I think the preacher may have been referring to some of the weird teachings in dispensational theology that analyze the vision of the statue in the book of Daniel (Chapter 2) that is made of different materials at different levels. I believe they teach that the legs of the statue represent the Roman Empire which is the last empire to have come and gone (from our perspective). The ten toes represent the yet to come about kingdom that brings about the Anti-christ. For the longest time, Dispensationalists taught that this would be the 10 member European Union or something like that. So, it may be that the preacher was not referring to actual history but the divine plan of god in bringing about advent of the anti-christ and the final kingdom of god (second coming of christ). That's the only way that such a statement about the Roman Empire could make sense. That is, if dispensational theology can in any way be considered "making sense." So, to answer your question, it is more crap - the crap taught by dispensational theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddlingAround Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Roman Empire . . . last empire . . .my memory banks are slowly heating up. . . thinking of my old premillenial dispensational theology days. I think the preacher may have been referring to some of the weird teachings in dispensational theology that analyze the vision of the statue in the book of Daniel (Chapter 2) that is made of different materials at different levels. I believe they teach that the legs of the statue represent the Roman Empire which is the last empire to have come and gone (from our perspective). The ten toes represent the yet to come about kingdom that brings about the Anti-christ. For the longest time, Dispensationalists taught that this would be the 10 member European Union or something like that. So, it may be that the preacher was not referring to actual history but the divine plan of god in bringing about advent of the anti-christ and the final kingdom of god (second coming of christ). That's the only way that such a statement about the Roman Empire could make sense. That is, if dispensational theology can in any way be considered "making sense." So, to answer your question, it is more crap - the crap taught by dispensational theology. Oh yeah! I remember that. Jon Courson, this preacher my mom likes (and in all fairness I used to like him, too ) used to go on about this. But then, he also said once that god instituted the eating of meat after the flood because - get this - it helped keep demons away. Uh-oh, vegetarians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 As far as "the Roman Empire never fell," I also recall that a lot of dispensationalists believe that the Roman Empire continued on in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. There traditionally has been a lot of vitriol in fundamentalism against the Catholics. Many fundamentalists believe (or at least believed during my high school days) that the Catholic church itself was "The Beast" of Revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Roman Empire . . . last empire . . .my memory banks are slowly heating up. . . thinking of my old premillenial dispensational theology days. I think the preacher may have been referring to some of the weird teachings in dispensational theology that analyze the vision of the statue in the book of Daniel (Chapter 2) that is made of different materials at different levels. I believe they teach that the legs of the statue represent the Roman Empire which is the last empire to have come and gone (from our perspective). The ten toes represent the yet to come about kingdom that brings about the Anti-christ. For the longest time, Dispensationalists taught that this would be the 10 member European Union or something like that. So, it may be that the preacher was not referring to actual history but the divine plan of god in bringing about advent of the anti-christ and the final kingdom of god (second coming of christ). That's the only way that such a statement about the Roman Empire could make sense. That is, if dispensational theology can in any way be considered "making sense." So, to answer your question, it is more crap - the crap taught by dispensational theology. When I was taught this stuff they explained by saying that the roman empire turned into the papal empire which is still somewhat around today. Of course I always wondered what about the Ottomans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 ...the last time I checked, plasma is not water nor does it look like clear water. Plasma does contain elements of water (I was going to be brainiack and say dihydrogen monoxide but that would be douchy of me), but it also contains other elements... Well to be fair, if the primitive people of babblical times had seen blood plasma somewhere, I could imagine they'd have called it water. But that is about all what's plausible in the whole claim Roman soldiers had seen so much in action, it would be doubtful that a soldier would have thought anything of what flowed out of a person's body. i think the reference to the water and blood was added at a later date to coincide with Christ being the source of spiritual waters? A lot is made out of water, in biblical reference, and writings--living water, baptism, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 ...the last time I checked, plasma is not water nor does it look like clear water. Plasma does contain elements of water (I was going to be brainiack and say dihydrogen monoxide but that would be douchy of me), but it also contains other elements... Well to be fair, if the primitive people of babblical times had seen blood plasma somewhere, I could imagine they'd have called it water. But that is about all what's plausible in the whole claim Roman soldiers had seen so much in action, it would be doubtful that a soldier would have thought anything of what flowed out of a person's body. i think the reference to the water and blood was added at a later date to coincide with Christ being the source of spiritual waters? A lot is made out of water, in biblical reference, and writings--living water, baptism, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts