Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It's easy to get caught up in the historic romanticism of the medieval Anglo-Scottish wars and forget that the two states have shared a common monarch for over 400 years and been a United Kingdom for more than 300. In this century, I suspect that economy trumps nationalism — which is why I think the Scots will reject independence and remain with the UK.
Very unlikely date. While the Gospels do suggest that Jesus was about 33 years old when he was crucified, this does not lead to a date of AD 33 because Jesus was not born in the “year 0.” In fact, there is no year 0 on the calendar. It simply moves directly from 1 BC to AD 1 (or 1 BCE to 1 CE).It's virtually certain Jesus was born between the years 6 and 4 BC because Herod the Great was still alive at his birth, and Herod died in 4 BC. Before his death, he had ordered all male children up to two years of age executed in Bethlehem. Hence, the Nativity was between 6-4 BC.Assuming Jesus died at age 33, as the Gospels say, that would place the year of the crucifixion at AD 27-29. Fixing an exact year is historically impossible.
While some scholars have argued that crucifixion was a bloodless form of death, with the victims tied to the cross (Brandenburger 1969, Jeremias 1966), Martin Hengel, who wrote perhaps the definitive scholarly report on ancient crucifixion (1977), agrees with Hewitt (1932) that nailing the victim by both hands and feet was the rule and tying the victim to the cross was the exception. During the first revolt of the Jews against the Romans in 66-73 CE, Josephus mentions that during the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE) “the soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different postures” (JW 5.11 and 451).So among historical scholars, there is no consensus that "most were not nailed" or "the more common method was to tie someone."It's possible that the form in which a prisoner was fastened to the cross may have depended on the number of individuals being crucified. In the case of the 6,000 prisoners of the Spartacus rebellion who were crucified on the Via Appia between Rome and Capua (Bella Civilia I.120), the most quick and efficient manner would have been to simply tie the victim to the tree with his hands suspended directly over his head and his feet unsecured.A victim fastened in that manner would die within 20 minutes to an hour because the increasing pressure on the diaphragm would rob him of the ability breathe. If his feet were secured, he could last much longer (up to several days) because he could use his feet to push up and relieve pressure on the diaphragm.
Under the Articles of Association (1774-1777) and the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788), the United States had no Chief Executive. Peyton Randolph was president of the First Continental Congress (1774), not president of the nation — just as John Hancock was president of the Second Continental Congress (1776).Be wary of historical iconoclasts who get carried away with themselves. They sometimes create more myths than they expose.
I a word yes; according to a friend from England the major points were (and are to many still):a) asking for treatment that was greater than for the rest of England (that is the direct representation) plus we had left because we didn't want to be treated like all the other Englishmen... so now we want to, sort of, on our terms;
Actually, the English did have direct representation. So did the Welsh, the Scots, and the Northern Irish. It was the Americans who were unrepresented, as they had no parliamentary delegation.It was a fundamental right of all Englishmen to be taxed only with their consent, expressed through their legal representatives in Parliament. Americans paid taxes willingly enough to their colonial governments -- but they were well represented in those governments. Their main objection to taxation by Parliament wasn't the taxes per se, but the fact that these taxes were levied by a body in which they had no voice or representation.In the 18th century, the only people who were taxed without representative consent were women, children, and slaves. To Americans, this seemed to be a case of Parliament telling them, "You are neither Englishmen, nor even men." In other words, they were mere colonial chattel.Americans were particularly incensed by the Townsend Act because in the 1600's England had passed a very similar tax law in Ireland. This reduced Ireland to total dependency on England for trade and subjugated Irish prosperity to English commercial interests. Many Americans saw Ireland as a foreshadowing of their own fate if they submitted to arbitrary taxation by Parliament.They were not in the wrong, and this was not the attitude of spoiled children wanting their way. It was the foresight of a people who had watched England subjugate other countries and did not want to be forced down that same path.
