• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

All-new Pictures Of Crucified Women!! (mp5's Crux Thread & Day Spa)

Go to CruxDreams.com
Livia Crux Dove said:
As a good Jewish girl I was told that many of my ancient Jewish foremothers ended their lives on the Roman cross. That we are a matrilineal people because us Jewish women were so often sold and raped and married to Gentile men/conquerors.

This all got me very curious, intrigued, wet, and horny as a girl

I often imagined myself dying on a Roman cross, humiliated, a conquered piece of meat that was used and now is on display for warning and entertainment


I bow my head, what else can I do, my female body is just another prize and conquest, I'm so shamed and lowly I don't even merit slavery in the brothel

My sunburnt body blisters, I feel cramps in my arms and legs, fire bursting through my delicate wrists and ankles pinned to the cross, my whip weals and cuts scrape the splintery wood as I squirm like an earthworm caught in the sun, drying out, dying.

I feel like I'm being pulled apart alive! Everyone is leering at me, I am crucified at eye level, spat on in the face and worse!

My prayers only serve to increase the laughter of those gawking at me, my naked body, dirty and wounded, desperate for water and release, shakes as I gasp for my next tormented breath
Click to expand...
I am in complete agreement. When crucified a short cross is better as it exposes the victim to abuse by the executioner and the viewing crowd. In my fantasies as a male, I see many innocent young women trifling with my privates and I hang in agony. Of course any one can play.
 
Turlough said:
I am in complete agreement. When crucified a short cross is better as it exposes the victim to abuse by the executioner and the viewing crowd. In my fantasies as a male, I see many innocent young women trifling with my privates and I hang in agony. Of course any one can play.
Click to expand...
In my fantasies, such play is not just frequent and encouraged, but often mandatory! A man must be drained of his vital force totally upon the cross, hand jobs, blow jobs, and even hair jobs are used on the condemned to squeeze them of ever drop of cum. And if the cock doesn't respond, the anus will. Plenty a man has made the embarassing discovery of the ecstasy of the anal orgasm while naked on one of my crosses!

...and my personal fantasies run the gamut from the ancient past before recorded time to the distant future where holodecks can bring you to the moment of death and back with no consequence!
 
thehangingtree said:
My dear, you are being crucified to put you to death. Flogged skin would be almost unbearable as your back scrapes against the rough wood of the cross. Remember, You have been condemned to death- not torture!!!!
Click to expand...
I have to agree with 202x the ancients apparently were very law and order folk. Death was not sufficient punishment for many crimes, if death was the point a knife to the throat, a simple hanging, or beheading would suffice. Crucifixion, impairing, flaying, drawing and quartering, or breaking are all about torture. Also the literature (including the Bible) clearly tells us that the flogging is an integral part of any crucifixion. True the torn up back adds to the pain experienced on the cross but that is the point isn't it.
 
Turlough said:
I have to agree with 202x the ancients apparently were very law and order folk. Death was not sufficient punishment for many crimes, if death was the point a knife to the throat, a simple hanging, or beheading would suffice. Crucifixion, impairing, flaying, drawing and quartering, or breaking are all about torture. Also the literature (including the Bible) clearly tells us that the flogging is an integral part of any crucifixion. True the torn up back adds to the pain experienced on the cross but that is the point isn't it.
Click to expand...
Turlough, thank you for that concise and very clear analysis. But when you say “the literature (including the Bible) clearly tells us that the flogging is an integral part of any crucifixion,” I am not sure. In that story it seems to me that Pilate, wavering at the prospect of the mob rioting, had Jesus flogged to make a sacrifice to mob rule. It was a savage punishment that could kill. When that did not propitiate them, he havered, tried to bargain (Bar Abbas), and only then in face of mob rule ordered crucifixion and washed his hands of the affair. In that story, it does not seem to me that flogging was a preliminary to crucifixion but an attempt to calm the mob with a horrible alternative.

The story says that Jesus, a man in his early 30s fit enough to tramp the length and breadth of Palestine, could not walk with his cross after that flogging but collapsed. The story suggests the collapse was unusual, but perhaps not surprising after such treatment. I don't think it implies it was usual (I imagine the centurions and optios had words to say about it).

It is strange that there are so few mentions of crucifixion in any texts. Contrast that with the witnesses to the botched and butchered beheading of Monmouth under James II, of Raleigh under James I, of Mary under Elizabeth I, by Dickens in Victoria’s time and many others. Monmouth was a duke and self-proclaimed king; Mary was a queen and of royal blood in several kingdoms; Raleigh, as the judge who condemned him to death said, had “been as it were a star in the firmament, but even stars must fall when they trouble the spheres wherein they abide.” Such are recorded, but the crucified were not of memorable status and the literate class found them smelly and distasteful.

So until someone invents a time machine we won’t know. I doubt they’ll invent it in my lifetime, but maybe they could drop back and pick me up and we could go together to see what happened. I wonder if we would not run back to our own times if we ever saw it.
 
Barabbas “Bar Abba”s. Son of a father. What an interesting name, perhaps a nome de guerre, or a deliberate choice by the gospel writers. Hard to know.

As for the other points, the Latin Vulgate removes some of the euphemism and subtext present in the original Greek. It’s unlikely that even Jesus carried the whole cross. Greek often did “whole for the part” so a crossbeam would be described as a cross, stavros, and it would be known to the readers of the time the specific details of the crucifixion.

As for if the whole cross could be dragged. Probably? If they aren’t flogged to ribbons, dragging a heavy cross is not actually that hard, you are just wimps. :p

But seriously the weight argument is overstated, carrying and dragging required different amounts of energy. It’s doable.
 
mp5stab said:
Barabbas “Bar Abba”s. Son of a father. What an interesting name, perhaps a nome de guerre, or a deliberate choice by the gospel writers. Hard to know.

As for the other points, the Latin Vulgate removes some of the euphemism and subtext present in the original Greek. It’s unlikely that even Jesus carried the whole cross. Greek often did “whole for the part” so a crossbeam would be described as a cross, stavros, and it would be known to the readers of the time the specific details of the crucifixion.

As for if the whole cross could be dragged. Probably? If they aren’t flogged to ribbons, dragging a heavy cross is not actually that hard, you are just wimps. :p

But seriously the weight argument is overstated, carrying and dragging required different amounts of energy. It’s doable.
Click to expand...
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, not Jesus. Mark even says "his sons Alexander and Rufus are with us", which says to me that he was probably real. John is adamant that Jesus "carried the cross for himself"--John's Jesus is in no way a wimp: there is no "agony" in the garden in John and no sleeping apostles. Apparently this whole episode is filled with legend and theological controversy.
 
mp5stab said:
Barabbas “Bar Abba”s. Son of a father. What an interesting name, perhaps a nome de guerre, or a deliberate choice by the gospel writers. Hard to know.

As for the other points, the Latin Vulgate removes some of the euphemism and subtext present in the original Greek. It’s unlikely that even Jesus carried the whole cross. Greek often did “whole for the part” so a crossbeam would be described as a cross, stavros, and it would be known to the readers of the time the specific details of the crucifixion.

As for if the whole cross could be dragged. Probably? If they aren’t flogged to ribbons, dragging a heavy cross is not actually that hard, you are just wimps. :p

But seriously the weight argument is overstated, carrying and dragging required different amounts of energy. It’s doable.
Click to expand...
Barabbas could either come from the Aramaic Bar Abba (Son of the father) or Bar Rabban (son of the rabbi).
Early text of the Gospels give him the first name Jesus. This might not mean much since Jesus (Yeshua) was probably a very common name. But, Bar Abba would indicate that he was the son of some other Jesus so well known they didn't have to be named. Bar Rabban might mean that he was the son of a well known rabbi. Both of these might mean that he is the son of some one else also named Jesus. And both could mean the crowd was being offered the choice between the father and the son.
The first name may have been dropped form later copies of the Gospels to avoid this implication.
Frank Petrexa said:
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, not Jesus. Mark even says "his sons Alexander and Rufus are with us", which says to me that he was probably real. John is adamant that Jesus "carried the cross for himself"--John's Jesus is in no way a wimp: there is no "agony" in the garden in John and no sleeping apostles. Apparently this whole episode is filled with legend and theological controversy.
Click to expand...
The synoptic Gospels represent Jesus as a man. To Mark, he is born a man and anointed by God, literally "the Messiah". In Matthew he is a man chosen by God from birth. To Luke, he is God born as a man. In John's theology, Jesus is not a man but God disguised as a man so he displays no human frailties.
 
Naraku said:
The synoptic Gospels represent Jesus as a man. To Mark, he is born a man and anointed by God, literally "the Messiah". In Matthew he is a man chosen by God from birth. To Luke, he is God born as a man. In John's theology, Jesus is not a man but God disguised as a man so he displays no human frailties.
Click to expand...
But in John he also says "the father is greater than I". The prologue says that all things were made "through him". Angels are also immortal and powerful. But I'm not sure "John" meant to institute the Trinity. It took around 400 years for Jesus to be designated as "God". As someone said, John has Gnostic elements--there is a secret, higher plane where Jesus resides which only those who have knowledge can access. It's really quite strange to think that the Messiah came institute God's kingdom and people fight about what it is. Even in the synoptics parables are designed to be mysterious and only accessible to a select few. I guess if everything is clear to all there is no allure and you can't make any money.
 
andy01 said:
Turlough, thank you for that concise and very clear analysis. But when you say “the literature (including the Bible) clearly tells us that the flogging is an integral part of any crucifixion,” I am not sure. In that story it seems to me that Pilate, wavering at the prospect of the mob rioting, had Jesus flogged to make a sacrifice to mob rule. It was a savage punishment that could kill. When that did not propitiate them, he havered, tried to bargain (Bar Abbas), and only then in face of mob rule ordered crucifixion and washed his hands of the affair. In that story, it does not seem to me that flogging was a preliminary to crucifixion but an attempt to calm the mob with a horrible alternative.

The story says that Jesus, a man in his early 30s fit enough to tramp the length and breadth of Palestine, could not walk with his cross after that flogging but collapsed. The story suggests the collapse was unusual, but perhaps not surprising after such treatment. I don't think it implies it was usual (I imagine the centurions and optios had words to say about it).

It is strange that there are so few mentions of crucifixion in any texts. Contrast that with the witnesses to the botched and butchered beheading of Monmouth under James II, of Raleigh under James I, of Mary under Elizabeth I, by Dickens in Victoria’s time and many others. Monmouth was a duke and self-proclaimed king; Mary was a queen and of royal blood in several kingdoms; Raleigh, as the judge who condemned him to death said, had “been as it were a star in the firmament, but even stars must fall when they trouble the spheres wherein they abide.” Such are recorded, but the crucified were not of memorable status and the literate class found them smelly and distasteful.

So until someone invents a time machine we won’t know. I doubt they’ll invent it in my lifetime, but maybe they could drop back and pick me up and we could go together to see what happened. I wonder if we would not run back to our own times if we ever saw it.
Click to expand...
mp5stab said:
Barabbas “Bar Abba”s. Son of a father. What an interesting name, perhaps a nome de guerre, or a deliberate choice by the gospel writers. Hard to know.

As for the other points, the Latin Vulgate removes some of the euphemism and subtext present in the original Greek. It’s unlikely that even Jesus carried the whole cross. Greek often did “whole for the part” so a crossbeam would be described as a cross, stavros, and it would be known to the readers of the time the specific details of the crucifixion.

As for if the whole cross could be dragged. Probably? If they aren’t flogged to ribbons, dragging a heavy cross is not actually that hard, you are just wimps. :p

But seriously the weight argument is overstated, carrying and dragging required different amounts of energy. It’s doable.
Click to expand...
Frank Petrexa said:
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, not Jesus. Mark even says "his sons Alexander and Rufus are with us", which says to me that he was probably real. John is adamant that Jesus "carried the cross for himself"--John's Jesus is in no way a wimp: there is no "agony" in the garden in John and no sleeping apostles. Apparently this whole episode is filled with legend and theological controversy.
Click to expand...
Naraku said:
Barabbas could either come from the Aramaic Bar Abba (Son of the father) or Bar Rabban (son of the rabbi).
Early text of the Gospels give him the first name Jesus. This might not mean much since Jesus (Yeshua) was probably a very common name. But, Bar Abba would indicate that he was the son of some other Jesus so well known they didn't have to be named. Bar Rabban might mean that he was the son of a well known rabbi. Both of these might mean that he is the son of some one else also named Jesus. And both could mean the crowd was being offered the choice between the father and the son.
The first name may have been dropped form later copies of the Gospels to avoid this implication.

The synoptic Gospels represent Jesus as a man. To Mark, he is born a man and anointed by God, literally "the Messiah". In Matthew he is a man chosen by God from birth. To Luke, he is God born as a man. In John's theology, Jesus is not a man but God disguised as a man so he displays no human frailties.
Click to expand...
Frank Petrexa said:
But in John he also says "the father is greater than I". The prologue says that all things were made "through him". Angels are also immortal and powerful. But I'm not sure "John" meant to institute the Trinity. It took around 400 years for Jesus to be designated as "God". As someone said, John has Gnostic elements--there is a secret, higher plane where Jesus resides which only those who have knowledge can access. It's really quite strange to think that the Messiah came institute God's kingdom and people fight about what it is. Even in the synoptics parables are designed to be mysterious and only accessible to a select few. I guess if everything is clear to all there is no allure and you can't make any money.
Click to expand...

After plowing through reading all this shit learned discourse, I feel ready to take the final exam for my DDiv degree from CFU.
Who gives out the diplomas, anyway? I’d imagine Eulalia.
 
poem21045 said:
After plowing through reading all this shit learned discourse, I feel ready to take the final exam for my DDiv degree from CFU.
Who gives out the diplomas, anyway? I’d imagine Eulalia.
Click to expand...
The Venn diagram between this sort of fetish and having a very religious background often resembles a circle.
 
Naraku said:
Bar Rabban (son of the rabbi).
Click to expand...
I understand at that time a rabbi was not only an ordained teacher, but an authority on the Law - so Barabbas had the advantage of having a good lawyer, his dad!
 
poem21045 said:
After plowing through reading all this shit learned discourse, I feel ready to take the final exam for my DDiv degree from CFU.
Who gives out the diplomas, anyway? I’d imagine Eulalia.
Click to expand...
Well, I could start handing out diplomas to balance Barb's demerits! A stick and carrot double act. :p

I've been thinking to shift this seminar to some place else, it's strayed far from from mp5stab's 'all-new pics'.
And, as ever, it was all my fault in the first place.
:spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom