The crucifiction

[claymore]

We know that Jesus was crucified, but did he physically die on the cross like the bible would have us believe?

[chakka35]

zabadak,where do you get the idea that the chances of Jesus' surviving are vanishingly small? I have already explained that nothing Jesus suffered would have killed him. His two fellow crucificees (who would have suffered the same scourging) were still alive.

Death from crucifixion would eventually come about from cardio-pulmonary complications, due to the victim's inabillty to breathe properly, fluid buiding up in the lungs and other nastinesses. Again I ask: if Jesus died in just a few hours what did he die of?

jake, what you cite is not evidence, merely stories. The anonymous "Mark" was written about AD70, the only earlier writings being the epistles of Paul, written about AD55-60. If Jesus was real why was not a word written about him during the time he was supposed to be alive? Why are there no eye-witness accounts? If you look at the evidence that supports the existence of Julius Caesar and other historical characters you'll see how utterly inadequate is the Jesus story as history. Unless, of course, you consider the Greek and Roman gods as being real purely on the grounds that some people wrote about them.

Ankou, you really should learn more about the subject. The idea that Pilate, whose normal way of treating unruly Jewish mobs was to slaughter them, would have given in meekly to Jewish requests that he should crucify Jesus is simply laughable.

[Zabadak]

Sorry Naomi, I was making an assumption based on "the lance may have entered the left hand side of the body at waist level missing the region of the heart altogether." I excluded "downwards", thought you were excluding "upwards", which left sideways. I still can't see the point of any lance stroke not intended as a finisher. Perhaps a rephrase. There was reputed to be a lance stroke. Combining the probable intention with the result (the out flow) it is reasonable to assume this was aimed at the region of the heart.

[Ankou]

chakka, that is not what i was saying.

i was saying that this is how it was written and approved, to make the romans appear more favourable at the expense of the jews. of course they would have banged him up, tortured him, crucufied him and made sure he was dead. but what better way to demonstrate false inculpability than to say the jews demanded it, we followed their request, kiled him, but he survived cos he is special.

[jno]

"If Jesus was real why was not a word written about him during the time he was supposed to be alive?"

Who says there wasn't? Stuff I wrote yesterday hasn't survived; that anything at all is still around after 2000 years seems down to chance more than anything else. If we insist on contemporaneous records as proof of existence we'd have to conclude there were about a dozen people in Judea in those days.

Far more likely is jake's suggestion (and Monty Python's) that there were prophets on every street corner and that there was simply no point in inventing one.

[Ankou]

"There shall, in that time, be rumours of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things wi-- with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment."

classic!

[jake-the-peg]

The spear is only metioned in the Gospel of John.

Hmm I wonder why nobody else mentioned it sounds a bit of a major ommission to me

As mentioned above there are records of people surviving crucifixion

[society]

Jesus is having a good laugh at you all debating his existence / non-existence . :-)

[naomi24]

Zabadak, if we're trying to discover the truth we can't make assumptions. I could say that Jesus appeared to have 'died' so extraordinarily quickly because the Roman soldiers were bribed by his rich friends (which I personally think is quite possible) but I wouldn't state it as fact because I have no concrete evidence to support it.

Ankou, you're not quite sure whether you're 'taking it all for real' or not, are you. ;o) Incidentally, there are no Roman records - 'approved' or otherwise.

Jake, ponjee is 14 and very taken with religion.

jno, //Stuff I wrote yesterday hasn't survived// There's no reason your writings should have survived, but you might expect anything written about the most momentous event in the history of the world to have been protected and revered.

Hi Society, I don't think Jesus would be laughing. I think he'd be appalled at what's been done in his name.

[society]

Yes Naomi, I agree 'appalled' is more appropriate.

[Ankou]

jake, yes records do exist, but the method or length of their crucifixion is often left out and this would of course have quite a bearing on survival. we are told that jesus was scourged, tortured, exhausted, crucified, then pierced in the side. then he died. often the legs would have been broken and they would have suffocated. for all we know, josephus' mates could have been hung up by rope for a couple of hours.

it would be more reasonable to assume he died. if he had been bound rather than nailed and there was no mention of the spear, then perhaps it would be 'more' reasonable to suppose he survived.

[Zabadak]

Chakka: I have said what I think based on what I read in the NT narratives and in supporting literature about the nature of Roman punishments. Flogging (Roman style, with a proper flagellum) was designed not to put a few stripes on the back, but to rip flesh from the body, causing severe trauma. Victims sometimes simply bled to death. Jesus was said to be seriously weakened by the ordeal. Adding crucifixion, and the obligation on the soldiers to make sure the victim was dead, I suggest seriously diminishes Jesus' survival chances. I agree with you on the fluid build up, and the asphyxiation aspects of crucifixion; the former, I suggest accounts for the "blood and water" outflow". So the answer to your question is blood loss, shock, and any one or more of a combination of factors - asphyxiation, maybe a spear thrust, heat failure - there's lots of documentation out there in internet land.

[Zabadak]

OK Naomi, I won't labour the point.

[Zabadak]

PS Naomi, how do you cope on here with people coming back at you from all angles - as a relative novice, I find it tricky to keep up with which discussion I'm having on which thread 8-)

[jake-the-peg]

You can't assume that Jesus's legs were broken - there's nothing to suggest that happened - indeed sometimes they added a little seat to make sure people lasted longer.

We have surprisingly little direct evidence of crucifixion - there seems to only be one crucified skeleton that has been discovered - which is quite remarkable.

I don't particularly have a point of view on this - I simply don't think there is enough evidence about any of the events surrounding it.

Remember that the accounts are likely to have been written at least 30 years after the fact - what's your memory like for details of what happened in 1980? and quite possibly not by people who were actually there in the first place.

Zabadak - I would emphasize that this supposed spear incident is only to be found in one of the 4 accounts - John and many scholars don't put a lot of weight behind the historical accuracy of this gospel.

In the very early church there were lots of ideas running around and the idea that Jesus did not die was one of them. It would not surprise me if the spear incident was added in to emphasise Jesus's bodily death

[naomi24]

Jake, 'John' specifically states that Jesus' legs were not broken.

[naomi24]

.......... which actually also fits in quite nicely with more of the ancient prophecies. Can't help thinking John had a bit of an agenda going on when he sat down to write.

[chakka35]

jno, why would Jesus, of all (assumed) historical people have no contemporaneous writings surviving about him? Nothing from his family and friends, the rich men he counselled, the sick he healed, the thousands he preached to. And why no mention in any Jewish or Roman records of the time, or any writings about Pilate or Herod?

Yet writings about him, written years afterwards by people who weren't there, who never knew him and had no eyewitness or other evidence at their disposal have survived. How come?

People believe the Jesus story becuse they want to; it's called faith. It cannot be justified historically.

zabadak, you exaggerate the sufferings of Jesus, bad as they were. Scourging before crucifixion was standard. I repeat that his two fellows would had suffered the same treatment and yet were still so obviously alive (as you would expect them to be) that they had to have their legs broken to kill them off.

By all means believe it all as a matter of faith, as I have said, but when you try to claim it as history you have nothing to go on except stories.

[Zabadak]

Jake-the-peg - and some scholars think, despite its more obvious "theological" content, some of "John's" contributions show inside knowledge the others don't have. I guess we'll never know for sure - not in this life, anyway 8-)

[naomi24]

I tend to suspect John's works show something like an inside knowledge of the effects of magic mushrooms. ;o)

[jno]

naomi, it wasn't that momentous when it happened. Sure, if someone rose from the dead now it'd be all over Twitter in an instant; but if you're in 1st-century Jerusalem and you're a poor fisherman, what would you actually do if you saw it happen? Tell your friends and family at most; and they mightn't believe you. The word didn't spread like wildifre; it was centuries before Rome became Christian. By and large it seems Jesus in his lifetime appealed to the sort of people who didn't write: not Romans, not even the Jewish elite. If it was years before anyone put it into writing, and not necessarily first-hand, that seems pretty predictable for the time and place and milieu.