Ronald Weinland says Jesus was not crucified the way recorded in the New Testament. Ron's infinite wisdom dictates that Jesus was simply nailed to a stake. If that is true, why was he compelled to carry the cross beam to the place of execution? Here is an excerpt from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia:
The person executed may sometimes have been attached to the cross by ropes, but nails are mentioned in a passage by the Judean historian Josephus, where he states that, at the Siege of Jerusalem (70), "the soldiers out of rage and hatred, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest". Objects, such as nails, used in the execution of criminals were sought as amulets.
Frequently, the legs of the person executed were broken or shattered with an iron club, an act called crurifragium which was also frequently applied without crucifixion to slaves. This act hastened the death of the person but was also meant to deter those who observed the crucifixion from committing offenses.
I would be interested in why Ron is so adamant about the stake versus traditional crucifixion. Jerusalem would have had a dedicated place of execution during the Roman occupation. The prisoners would have to carry their own cross beam as an additional punishment. They were nailed to the cross beam and then hoisted up by rope through a notch at the top of a permanent pole embedded in the ground. If Jesus was nailed to the stake, as Ron preaches, he would not need to have carried a crossbeam.
Ronald Weinland does not have a PhD in anthropology, but Dr. Nick Hass professor of anatomy at H.U. Medical School does:
In his article "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar" published in the Israel Exploration Journal in 1970, N. Haas of the Department of Anatomy at Hebrew University, writes of the remains of a man crucified around A.D. 70 as showing that the two-beam cross was in use in Palestine in the first century: "The whole of our interpretation concerning the position of the body on the cross may be described briefly as follows: The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm."
Link to Wikipedia article on Crucify
The testimony of Jesus Christ clearly indicates he was crucified in this manner, and it is backed up by an anthropologist's lecture along with many historian's account of the times. Ron invents mischief to get peoples attention, then uses his sorcery to lead them away from the truth, and enslave them into his tithe pool.
In anticipation of Ron's response of "Wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia. Anyone can write whatever garbage they want to, and post it on Wikipedia.", I am providing a link to Encyclopedia Britannica which publishes almost exactly word for word what is published by Wikipedia.
Just because Ron saw a drawing of a field expedient crucifixion, he has jumped to conclusions and abandoned what is clearly written in the Holy Bible. There is no truth in Ronald Weinland, which is why he is wearing the headgear of an enchanter on this blog. Of course everything written about Ronald Weinland here is only my humble opinion.
If I were to judge Ronald Weinland by the law of Moses, things would look pretty grim for him.
3 comments:
"I would be interested in why Ron is so adamant about the stake versus traditional crucifixion."
Because the cross is a pagan symbol co-opted by falsely-so-called "traditional Christianity". The Armstrongist religion has always believed this, and will continue to believe it.
Members in my day were forbidden to wear crosses, display crosses in their homes (not that any of them would be stupid enough to do that in the first place), and forbidden to buy bibles with crosses on the cover. The caduceus of the medical profession was considered a sign of Satan's disciples, not just because it's a cross with two snakes around it, but because it was the false image that Moses raised up in the wilderness to heal the people from the parasites. And the image of the serpent, the reasoning went, was more proof that doctors and medicine were of the Devil.
Crosses still wig me out. Especially the "dead-guy-on-a-stick" variety. Dunno if it's the church programming, or not. I mean, I happily celebrate the Solstices, so I'm not sure why I still quite wrap my head around the idea that crosses and crucifixes are OK. Not to my taste nor my theology (such as it is), but OK.
Sounds like Weinland's changing the Armstrongist theology, though; we were always taught the christological figure was crucified on a tree.
"while I still CAN'T quite wrap my head around" ugh.
I've always thought that the cross on a church identifies the building as being a church. To me a cross symbolizes that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. Or it identifies a person as believing in Jesus.
But to kneel before a cross and pray to it is in my opinion, blind.
Unfortunately there are a lot of preachers out there that teach a lot of crap.
Some little old lady who goes to church almost everyday to pray to God, and has a crucifix around her neck, isn't a pagan in my opinion. The sh**heads who teach her she is not a Christian unless she buys and wears a cross are..........well this is supposed to be a family friendly blog so I'll keep my words civil.
To have a cross on the cover of a bible is not pagan. To have a cross on a building is not pagan. To get down on your knees and pray to a cross is probably pagan. I guess it would be sort of like praying to a brass statue of some fat dead guy. But the person who prays to a cross is not in trouble. It's the person who preaches and demands that others pray to a cross that should be in trouble, because they are blind and deaf to the truth which is plainly written in the NT, and needs no interpretation.
As for the winged staff of medicine, it's just a logo. The radio church of god used to tell people that going to a doctor was lack of faith and many got sick and died because of HWA's perverted views and commandments.
Isn't it funny how Apostle Armstrong was taking prescription medication? What happened to his faith in God? I wonder if he really had any at all. It might have really just been an elaborate con game. I hope he enjoyed his last meal on a gold plate, because he is in the cold, cold ground now. He can't preach his lies anymore. Neither can his boy, Teddy. Unfortunately their views on God and money, did not die with them.
Post a Comment