Iron nails

There’s no guesswork when it comes to knowing what this is.  It’s a straight up crucifix comprised of iron nails and either vine or wire.  The ruggedness of the cross links to the the crucifixion, in which Jesus was beaten and paraded through the streets.  While a lot of cross tattoos use similar imagery, this is the first one I’ve seen using this style, and I’ve got to say, Jackie did a great job creating it.

Jackie Rabbit works at Star City Tattoo in Roanoke, VA

19 thoughts on “Iron nails

  1. when one of my regulars brought a friend asking for a “unique” cross tattoo you could damn near hear the eyes rolling haha. i did my best with it and all were quite pleased :) thank you for posting it

  2. You’re welcome to believe what you like, or not. And so am I. So please don’t use the term “crucifixion myth” as if it were a statement of fact.

  3. Tim, just as you said, he too is welcome to believe what he likes. He was the one writing the article so he can use whatever term he sees fit.

    It’s your choice whether to be affected by what one other person thinks about it or not.

    If your faith was strong enough, you would forgive him.

  4. Tim, the onus of proof is on those making extraordinary claims. If people could leave the historicity of Jesus at the man, then everything would become a lot easier. But Christians aren’t satisfied to leave the question at whether a MAN named Jesus existed, the Jesus of the New Testament, they then move into the ridiculous and unverifiable claim that he was Divine. So the onus is on those who believe the crucifixtion myth symbolises more than a social deviant being punished in a horrid way. The onus is on those to prove that a) this man ever existed at all (which is a dubious claim at best) and b) that this man’s death absolved humanity’s “sins”, and he then rose from the dead, ascending bodily to Heaven. Claim A is something that anyone could get behind assuming it was proven. Claim B is frickin’ codswallop. Deal with it.

  5. @Tim: The use of the term “Myth” is perfectly acceptable terminology when referencing a story from religion. That goes for all religions, not just Christianity.

    From wikipedia: “The main characters in myths are usually gods, supernatural heroes and humans. As sacred stories, myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and closely linked to religion. In the society in which it is told, a myth is usually regarded as a true account of the remote past.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

  6. Could keep that on the wall so if that bastard child ever returns we could NAIL him right back down

  7. I thought that fact that he was crucified was basic historic fact?

    i don’t consider the fact that he was alive and killed part of the religion, but I’m not the most knowledgeable on the subject, so…

  8. Also I don’t really think this should turn into a religion debate on modblog, because it’s just going to lead to people getting upset. no one is ever going to change their religious views from an internet argument, so it’s kind of pointless to argue about it in this setting.

  9. It’s never pointless to DEBATE religion. It’s not an argument if everyone can keep their heads on.

    Also @Meow: It’s not basic historic fact that Jesus was crucified AT ALL; it’s not even a certainty that Jesus Christ existed. The only contemporary written accounts number but three, and calling them contemporary is a stretch as they date to the first and second centuries after Christ, which could be at least two generations afterwards at the earliest. These accounts generally mention early Christians, but not any personage by the name of Jesus, Yeshua, or any of the other names attributed to Jesus Christ. In Suetonius’s account, Chrestus is a Jewish leader who causes disturbances, and that’s the extent of it. It doesn’t have any further similarities to Christ. So “basic historic fact” it is not.

    I love the study of religion, its history and cross-comparative analysis, but it’s useful to stay objective in its examination.

  10. thanks for the info, because like I said, I am not at all knowledgable on the subject. History was my worst subject actually, heh.

    A debate over religion on modblog is not going to stay civil very long, and that’s the problem.

    Somebody already said this: “Could keep that on the wall so if that bastard child ever returns we could NAIL him right back down”

    So yeah, not a great idea imo.

  11. Cant we just talk about how awesome I am instead ;p haha…….when it comes to religious “discussion”….no one wins*
    *See; every war ever fought anywhere

  12. Really impressive tattoo, one of the finest crucifix designs I’ve seen. I didn’t care for the term “crucifixion myth” or some of the comments that followed. Seems to me that some folk here are broad-minded and super-tolerant about other people’s body mods but intolerant and hurtful about other people’s spirituality.

  13. I participate in a lot of religious debates, and this one is actually one of the most civil I’ve witnessed thus far.

    I think Jesus probably did exist, but he was nothing more than a well-meaning schizophrenic who was taken too seriously. I blame Mary for the way everything spiraled out of control. She’s the one who filled the poor boy’s head with a bunch of bullcorn about “immaculate conception” & him being the “son of god” just to cover her own adulterous ass. People back then didn’t know what mental illness was, they were already superstitious & therefore were receptive to the idea of a messiah, and so they ran with the story. Over time it was embellished upon as stories almost always are, and now we have Christianity. It’s no different than any other ancient myth, the only real difference is it hasn’t yet run its course. It IS a myth unless proven otherwise along with every other religion, and eventually Yahweh will be on the same shelf as Zeus, Odin, or Athena. That said, I have a lot of respect for some of the things Jesus taught and I don’t doubt that he was probably a very good person. I don’t blame him for the things his followers do & say in his name. I think religion in general is rubbish and is responsible for most of the world’s problems, but remarks like Alex’s are childish & unnecessary. There are ways to express your dislike of religion without resorting to violent imagery or misdirected anger.

    And, as an atheist, I actually quite like this tattoo. It’s very well done :)

  14. I’m going to say most people are aware of the significance of a cross to religion. So throwing “The ruggedness of the cross links to the crucifixion myth, in which Jesus was beaten and paraded through the streets.” is an uncalled for attempt to display your religious views which isn’t what Modblog was about last time I checked.
    The tattoo is nice work but as far as your writing goes, Rob, you’re representing a body modification site. You should really attempt to keep your views to yourself unless they’re coming from a personal blog.

  15. If you don’t care for the term “crucifixion myth”, then you’re clearly intolerant of atheism hur dur. It’s a two way street, and just because our views are contradictory in nature doesn’t mean you need to get all butthurt about it.

  16. I would just like to take a moment to apologize to all those I may have offended with my choice of wording. Having studied religion and mythology in university I have gotten into the habit of referring to any religious story as a myth (regardless of what religion it is). When I use the term myth I don’t mean to imply that the story is fake, but rather it has become a significant event in the eyes of the specific religion, to the point that it is reverential.

    It was never my intention to upset anyone with my comment. I’ve edited the article to change the wording, and again I apologize for any distress I may have caused you.

  17. Rob! NOT COOL! Never censor yourself! You’re the writer here on ModBlog. If people choose to be offended by what you write, that’s their business. You did nothing wrong by referring to the “crucifixion myth”; that’s a perfectly legitimate use of the term “myth”. The fact you reworded the article means you’ve just given in to ignorance. If someone cannot separate their biases or beliefs from their critical thinking skills, if they lack the ability to argue a point in a debate because they personally get heated, that’s a failing in them, not in your writing. I know I shouldn’t be, but I’m very, very disappointed.

    Ben @ 16 is choosing to interpret the motivations behind what you wrote in a particular way and shame on him for seeing a negative motivation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>