La Cambe Cemetary, Normandy, France

[waysider]

http://www.rexcrum.com/rexpresto/Travel_Stories/Entries/2008/2/14_German_Cemetery_Normandy.html

edit: I apologize for the spelling error in the topic title. I don't know how to edit it.

Edited March 3, 2012 by waysider

[waysider]

Much, much older ....Les Cinq Croix

"The Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913), a frequent visitor to Brittany, cited the Five Crosses, and included a photograph thereof, as one historical evidence that he was not original in his view that four—rather than the traditional count of two— "others" were crucified with Jesus: two thieves and two other malefactors.[3]

SOURCE

[OldSkool]

Shhhh....we can't sell as many classes when you let the cat out of the bag!

[waysider]

"It just sits there like a duck."....VPW

[waysider]

"Like it hadn't been known since the first century"....

Well, we don't count cemeteries...We only count the volumes that were hauled to the city dump so he could start from scratch.

[WordWolf]

Well, I don't see the discrepancy. It seems to me that it was a non-issue that Wierwille could use to exalt his position and make himself appear to have gotten his patented knowledge that hadn't been revealed since the first century...the crux of the PFALoter's belief system.

This has probably been done several times before, so bear with me here:

Let's see if I understand it correctly,

Wierwille does the following in the piffle class:

• He calls into question early in the piffle class a teaching pretty well universally accepted
  
  • One that is pretty well universally accepted by Christianity
    
  • One that has a very identifiable icon associated with it
    
  • An icon that has been seen and identified with the event by almost the entire population of the US
    

  [*]He then proceeds to rip apart that teaching

  • He uses an English translation that is almost (now) 500 years old to do so. The effects of the use of that translation are:
    
    • The language is archaic, not familiar to modern English speakers, and is subject to misapplication
      
    • The translation is known to have several serious errors in it
      
    • Those errors and archaic usages are pointed out, where convenient, but the pointing out of them allows for Wierwille's interpretation to be inserted as he chooses
      

    [*]He selectively refers back to the Greek terms used by the authors

    • He confuses the students by pointing out the difference between two greek words that are often rendered as the same english word in that archaic translation of the Bible
      
      • Confusing, because only one of those terms is used in that context and not the other
        
      • Confusing, because he doesn't refer back to the proper antecedent for the word that is used
        

      [*]He doesn't, on the other hand, refer back to a greek word that was at the core of the apparent temporal anomaly that caused the 'apparent contradiction' that he was trying to 'solve.'

      [*]He also mentions the difference between two english words used to describe those who were crucified with Christ

      • Note that he doesn't go back to the greek there, either. He just gives the 'translation'
        
      • In giving this 'translation,' he doesn't bother to mention that the words are different parts of speech (one was a noun -- an object; one was an adjective -- a word used to describe an object)
        

      [*]He calls into question the use of punctuation and points out, correctly, that punctuation was not present in the original manuscripts. He does this to show that the numbers may have been rendered incorrectly in the translation.

      • But he doesn't refer the students back to the original greek here, either, where the numbers are clearly identified
        
      • He doesn't mention that in two gospel accounts, a numeral is translated as both 'one' and 'another'
        
      • He doesn't mention in the third gospel account that the preposition used was clearly used in the singular number
        

  [*]The vast majority of the students of the piffle class are simply not Greek scholars. Those who may have taken some classes as the result of being enrolled in a religious high school or college (and who might have been exposed to some greek or some of the little tidbits that were thrown out) would likely have an incomplete knowledge or one that was fogged by time.

  • Thus bringing up the little tidbits (uncial versus cursive, punctuation in the manuscripts, heteros versus allos, etc.) would tend to impress the listener
    
  • All to bring up a sense of gravitas to the speaker
    

  [*]The probable effects:

  • A pretty well universal, but trivial, teaching is called into question.
    
    • This establishes the gravitas of the speaker to the fairly uncritical student
      
    • The student is also left with the thought, "what else was I taught incorrectly?"
      

    [*]The uncritical student is then going to pay a little more heed to subsequent lessons of the teacher, rendering them more vulnerable.

    <hr height=5>

    Sorry for the length of this, btw, but I have only a little more to say.

    I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture:

    <center>

    </center>

    Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses:

    five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728

    Google translated page: here. Original (in french) here. <hr width=50%>

    The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction.

    Google translation here. Original (in french) here.<hr width=50%>

    Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible?

    One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more...

    Sorry for the length of the post, folks...

    on edit, to fix the bottom pic so it wouldn't screw up the whole page

The 5 crosses were from different monuments made in different CENTURIES,

and ASSEMBLED later in a set of 5. They're not a MATCHING set when you look closer.

[OldSkool]

Thanks WW!