Malvern Save The Children Christmas Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
The crucifiction
92 Answers
We know that Jesus was crucified, but did he physically die on the cross like the bible would have us believe?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - According to you Jesus (pbuh) never existed. So why do you need a proof about what I am saying about Bible? Its like saying that I do not believe in hereafter but tell me why God will punish few people there. If something does not exist (according to you) then why are you worried about what others say? However I still stand by my claim.
Naomi - Make sure you listen to all of it and check all of the Bible references given, although I am sure you would never agree but there are others here who may not have locked mind if someone gives logical answers.
http://video.google.c...-7645977768965605060#
http://video.google.c...-7645977768965605060#
Hi Naomi: I don't think I'm making it up: this is the relevant passage:
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there was an outrush of blood and water. And the man who saw this is our witness: his evidence is true. (He is certain that he is speaking the truth, so that you may believe as well.)
As I said, it's possible that there was more significance in that particular episode than meets our eyes, most likely a link to earlier prophetic writing.
And any spear thrust into a crucified victim would almost certainly be in a diagonally upward, not sideways direction: what I described is not affected by which side it was. I don't see any point in the spear thrust unless it was either a coup de grace or just making sure.
"The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim." -
Retief FP, Cilliers L (December 2003). "The history and pathology of crucifixion". South African Medical Journal
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there was an outrush of blood and water. And the man who saw this is our witness: his evidence is true. (He is certain that he is speaking the truth, so that you may believe as well.)
As I said, it's possible that there was more significance in that particular episode than meets our eyes, most likely a link to earlier prophetic writing.
And any spear thrust into a crucified victim would almost certainly be in a diagonally upward, not sideways direction: what I described is not affected by which side it was. I don't see any point in the spear thrust unless it was either a coup de grace or just making sure.
"The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim." -
Retief FP, Cilliers L (December 2003). "The history and pathology of crucifixion". South African Medical Journal
For heavens sake, Zabadak, what 'witness'? Whoever wrote 'John' had not been there and was writing about 70 years after the supposed event, with no evidence at all from any identifiable eyewitnesses, because there aren't any.
The 'piercing'of the side, ignoring the fact that such an idea had suddenly emerged after all those years (not mentioned by the earlier Paul, 'Mark', 'Luke' or 'Matthew', whoever they were), was actually a 'pricking' if you check the translations.
To treat the whole thing as history is very silly. It's just a fairytale.
The 'piercing'of the side, ignoring the fact that such an idea had suddenly emerged after all those years (not mentioned by the earlier Paul, 'Mark', 'Luke' or 'Matthew', whoever they were), was actually a 'pricking' if you check the translations.
To treat the whole thing as history is very silly. It's just a fairytale.
Chakka. ἀλλ' (but) εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν (one of the soldiers) λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ (with his spear) τὴν πλευρὰν (the side/ribs: we get the adjective pleural from this root) ἔνυξε, (pierced through, transfixed, 3rd pers aorist of νυσσω). There are instances of the same verb in classical Greek also meaning prick or even nudge, but no Greek scholar would support that translation in this context.
Even fairy stories can be properly analysed and understood.
Even fairy stories can be properly analysed and understood.
So anyway, claymore, my answer to your question is given the nature of crucifixion, combined with the destructive effects of a preceding flogging, the chance of Jesus physically surviving is vanishingly small. Even Schonfield, who perhaps first popularised in 1965 the theory that the crucifixion was rigged, conceded that the plot went wrong, and Jesus died because of a soldier's actions with a spear.
as a middle-east practice it still is used to kill - that was the purpose to kill Jesus
http://blog.amnestyus...xion-in-saudi-arabia/
http://blog.amnestyus...xion-in-saudi-arabia/
Keyplus, I really don't believe you've ever read anything except the Koran, you know. I have never said I don't believe Jesus existed. I think he did. And you're rather silly to stand by your claim because you're wrong - and if you took the trouble to read the bible for yourself you would know you are very clearly wrong. That's what happens when you rely upon other people to educate you rather than taking the trouble to investigate for yourself. You haven't even managed to get my take on the existence of Jesus right - and it was only on the previous page that I clarified it!
I don't have a spare hour plus at the moment but when I do I'll watch the video.
Zabadak, //There was also reputed to be a lance stroke to the region of the heart//
No, there wasn't. You're making it up and you are wrong to make such a claim. For all anyone knows the lance may have entered the left hand side of the body at waist level missing the region of the heart altogether. You can wheedle around it all you like but the fact remains that nowhere does the text state that there was a lance stroke to the region of the heart.
Tamborine, barbarians! (Waits for the howls of protest for calling barbarians 'barbarians').
I don't have a spare hour plus at the moment but when I do I'll watch the video.
Zabadak, //There was also reputed to be a lance stroke to the region of the heart//
No, there wasn't. You're making it up and you are wrong to make such a claim. For all anyone knows the lance may have entered the left hand side of the body at waist level missing the region of the heart altogether. You can wheedle around it all you like but the fact remains that nowhere does the text state that there was a lance stroke to the region of the heart.
Tamborine, barbarians! (Waits for the howls of protest for calling barbarians 'barbarians').
i think if anything (existence of jesus aside) it was an embellishment by the powers that be.
if jesus existed and was crucified, then the romans would have made darn sure he was dead. however, it wasn't the romans that inflicted this punishment on jesus, but his own people, the jews, who demanded it. the romans had to carry it out (against their will of course) but guess what, we (collective romans) didn't kill him at all cos he survived, hoorah for the romans, boo to the jews who wanted him dead.
thats my take on it anyway. just another false legitimisation by the romans of a politically motivated faith movement.
if jesus existed and was crucified, then the romans would have made darn sure he was dead. however, it wasn't the romans that inflicted this punishment on jesus, but his own people, the jews, who demanded it. the romans had to carry it out (against their will of course) but guess what, we (collective romans) didn't kill him at all cos he survived, hoorah for the romans, boo to the jews who wanted him dead.
thats my take on it anyway. just another false legitimisation by the romans of a politically motivated faith movement.
"There is no evidence for a historical Jesus"
There are the two references by Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Now I'd certainly not suggest that these are both entirely accurate - indeed some of it seems to be very crudely edited.
However it does constitute evidence.
Given the Age of Mark's Gospel and the number of other early writings it seems improbable that Jesus was an invented character.
Indeed why would it be necessary? 1st century Judea was swarming with healers, wise men, mystics, miracle workers.
So I'd say that there is some evidence but there is no evidence that he was ficticious
There are the two references by Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Now I'd certainly not suggest that these are both entirely accurate - indeed some of it seems to be very crudely edited.
However it does constitute evidence.
Given the Age of Mark's Gospel and the number of other early writings it seems improbable that Jesus was an invented character.
Indeed why would it be necessary? 1st century Judea was swarming with healers, wise men, mystics, miracle workers.
So I'd say that there is some evidence but there is no evidence that he was ficticious
Naomi. Given the relative positions of soldier and crucified person, and the need to make sure the execution is complete. what is Roman soldier most likely to do? How is "sideways" even possible? What is most likely to produce a flow of water and blood? I present probabilities based on the simplest reading of the text and an understanding of how crucifixion works (which I almost wish I didn't have!). People can make up their own minds about fabrication or otherwise. I have given my conclusion, and I dispute the "making it up" charge.
i think (taking it all as real) he did die, but the romans made sure the 'approved' records showed he survived so as to make themselves look better.
citing herods suprise that he died so quickly is hardly reliable evidence - unless you take the bible as fact and truth - since is there is a large amount of doubt as to whether herod was still alive when the trial is said to have taken place anyway.
citing herods suprise that he died so quickly is hardly reliable evidence - unless you take the bible as fact and truth - since is there is a large amount of doubt as to whether herod was still alive when the trial is said to have taken place anyway.
The only evidence of the crucifixion comes from the Gospells and they are obviously partial and they confuse the details
See here:
http://atheism.about....ons/p/Crucifixion.htm
They cannot agree on Jesus' last words or even the time
Mathew says there was an earthquake which none of the other gospel writers seem to have noticed.
And yet these are the texts on which so much pious analysis was based.
Incidently Josephus talks about 3 friends of his that were crucified
http://www.centuryone.org/crucifixion2.html
He appealed and they were taken down - one survived with medical care.
See here:
http://atheism.about....ons/p/Crucifixion.htm
They cannot agree on Jesus' last words or even the time
Mathew says there was an earthquake which none of the other gospel writers seem to have noticed.
And yet these are the texts on which so much pious analysis was based.
Incidently Josephus talks about 3 friends of his that were crucified
http://www.centuryone.org/crucifixion2.html
He appealed and they were taken down - one survived with medical care.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Jobs & Education14 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
