Crucifixion as impalement?

[Hermes]

My ex-esoteric teacher, Burt Wilson wrote a book the crucifixion cover-up. He personally revealed to me that he had a vivid dream and that is why he had to write this book (you can Google it)
In his book he alleges that back in Jesus's time the actual crucifixion OFTEN included an additional bonus, impalement (which was also a barbaric torture in itself in the olden days) but I found no evidence of this on my research of historical and biblical references. Knowing the Romans for their barbaric punishments and the practical idea of a body weight not supporting the arms and nails (the nails would be ripped through the hands)....impalement while being crucified is a plausible argument. In the bible the nails are trough the hands, but I found others claiming that the nails were placed in between the bones of the forearm (the ulna and radius), refuting the impalement theory.
I am posting this as a mind distraction of historical interest not a philosophical debate, while I am forever in debt to my teacher I have moved on a long time ago and pursuing other philosophical quests.

 

[radarmark]

It could be that nails were used on palms after the lower arms were tied to the cross-piece. Or it could be that the nails were through the wrists (usually between ulna and radius at the highest metacarpal. Either would just be an additional torment to the slow death due to affixation. Impalement shortened the agony, so I personally doubt it was used “OFTEN”. See the crucifixions in Josephus or of Spartacus (Plutarch and Appian and Cicero all give vivid descriptions)… the Romans usually did not shorten the suffering.

 

[Dream]

The book you mention asserts that the church invented sin to cover up the method of crucifixion and that certain methods of crucifixion would have prevented the possibility of resurrection. How would that be? It sounds far fetched.

 

[Hermes]

Dream, did you read the whole book? I do not think the book's aim is as such as you claim. As for the "sin" being invented by the church (or Jesus died for our sins), that is very much a fact! (at last in my word view) They were selling little pieces of paper's to lift the karmic burden of "sin". Duping people out of their money. That in today's climate would equal a used car salesmen or politician, ethics-wise. The church is still doing it albeit in a different form.
Burt is not saying that impalement has made Resurrection impossible but he claims that there is no such thing as Resurrection as the church claims. Resurrection is in fact appears as such but it is, IN FACT, a spirit ascending/manifesting into astral body and become visible. That is why Jesus said do not touch me Mary....
Jesus did not die for our sins at all - even the Bible does not say that. It was fabricated by some spinster, at the early church.
The blurb is very badly written and the word crucifixion is even misspelled.

The book you mention asserts that the church invented sin to cover up the method of crucifixion and that certain methods of crucifixion would have prevented the possibility of resurrection. How would that be? It sounds far fetched.

 

[radarmark]

You should both keep in mind that (per early Aramaic scholarship) sin is merely "to stray", or "to break away", or "to reel" in the primitive Hebrew forms (used 112 times in the oldest sections o the OT). In Aramaic it is "hamartya" (used 8 times by Jesus and translated as "sin" or" "debt") again implies a "missing the mark (as in a bet)".

Therefore, it is possible that Jesus was actually not talking about sin (as we know it).

Whether or not this pre-Nicene definition of sin was an "invention of the Church" or the invention of Paul (as some claim) I do not know.

Nor do I know the origin of the crucifixion-resurrection-ascension theme. It could be both of the latter were spiritual and not physical. But the growth and dedication of the early Jesus Movement is such that I believe it likely that they were physical. That explains the Jewish-Christians staying such until they were killed off in the Bar Kochba war (you would have to have a real impetuous for joining this group). It explains the wild-fire growth of the Marcionites and Gnostics. Oh, and it goes a long way in explaining the sheer doggedness of those in-between (call them the Peterine and Johanine groups) who were identifying themselves with the proven enemies of Rome (the Jews)--even though this connection was white-washed over in the second century.

 

[Dream]

Dream, did you read the whole book? I do not think the book's aim is as such as you claim.

It is from the abstract on lulu.com where the book is being sold, but you are right. I have not read it and misunderstood the abstract.

 

[Hermes]

Well, ascension in absolute terms is both; spiritual and physical (that is where the rapture) gets its ideas. Burt is very much into the Gnosis of the Abrahamic faith and extremely knowledgeable (he had 40+ years to study) on the Bible and esoteric interpretation of Jesus. From his tutelage, I am also very much into the whole Biblical theme but as you probably see, completely reject the christian doctrine. I consider it a shame as it is the biggest lie it was every told and perpetrated by Constantine (the Saint) and his minions.
P.S.
Constantine got the sainthood despite he murdered a few of his close relatives.

You should both keep in mind that (per early Aramaic scholarship) sin is merely "to stray", or "to break away", or "to reel" in the primitive Hebrew forms (used 112 times in the oldest sections o the OT). In Aramaic it is "hamartya" (used 8 times by Jesus and translated as "sin" or" "debt") again implies a "missing the mark (as in a bet)".

Therefore, it is possible that Jesus was actually not talking about sin (as we know it).

Whether or not this pre-Nicene definition of sin was an "invention of the Church" or the invention of Paul (as some claim) I do not know.

Nor do I know the origin of the crucifixion-resurrection-ascension theme. It could be both of the latter were spiritual and not physical. But the growth and dedication of the early Jesus Movement is such that I believe it likely that they were physical. That explains the Jewish-Christians staying such until they were killed off in the Bar Kochba war (you would have to have a real impetuous for joining this group). It explains the wild-fire growth of the Marcionites and Gnostics. Oh, and it goes a long way in explaining the sheer doggedness of those in-between (call them the Peterine and Johanine groups) who were identifying themselves with the proven enemies of Rome (the Jews)--even though this connection was white-washed over in the second century.