Was Jesus Really Crucified

[Faybull]

As with all things, there is a grain of truth. There was likely a Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and was a heretical Rabbi at roughly that time.

My problem with the story is the nature of the crucifixion. Rome rarely, if ever, used it as a sentence of death. The only notable time was with the Spartacus uprising. I think Jesus merely went into a death-like state. I mean, medical knowledge was not exactly the best. It is entirely possible to be assumed dead without actually being so without finely tuned equipment.

You are joshing, right? "rarely, if ever, used it as a sentence of death"? How do you mean, when you state this? It was infamously used. as a method of execution.

 

[psychoslice]

As with all things, there is a grain of truth. There was likely a Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, and was a heretical Rabbi at roughly that time.

My problem with the story is the nature of the crucifixion. Rome rarely, if ever, used it as a sentence of death. The only notable time was with the Spartacus uprising. I think Jesus merely went into a death-like state. I mean, medical knowledge was not exactly the best. It is entirely possible to be assumed dead without actually being so without finely tuned equipment.

No, it was all dead , there is no truth in any god.

 

[Faybull]

Is it interesting, that the tau, Greek "t", is also taw, in Hebrew, meaning "mark"? Or maybe it isn't interesting? Which in the Torah, is literally, wound.

 

[Nietzsche]

You are joshing, right? "rarely, if ever, used it as a sentence of death"? How do you mean, when you state this? It was infamously used. as a method of execution.

Allow me to elaborate & clarify.

Crucifixion was an extremely slow way to die. Because they expected the friends & family to buy their fellow off the cross. Something that happened far, far, far more than someone actually dying on the cross. So was it used as execution? In theory yes. But it rarely got that far out.

No, it was all dead , there is no truth in any god.

Wasn't implying he was the son of god, or that he raised. I instead was saying that he didn't die at all.

 

[Nietzsche]

Is it interesting, that the tau, Greek "t", is also taw, in Hebrew, meaning "mark"? Or maybe it isn't interesting? Which in the Torah, is literally, wound.

Two languages developing at roughly the same time within walking distance of each other having similar letters? Shocking!

 

[sojourner]

Crucifixion was an extremely slow way to die. Because they expected the friends & family to buy their fellow off the cross. Something that happened far, far, far more than someone actually dying on the cross. So was it used as execution? In theory yes. But it rarely got that far out.

That's why they generally ended up breaking the victim's legs, so that they would suffocate quickly.

 

[Nietzsche]

That's why they generally ended up breaking the victim's legs, so that they would suffocate quickly.

I can't recall, does the Bible state that his legs were broken?

 

[sojourner]

I can't recall, does the Bible state that his legs were broken?

No. It specifically states that his legs were not broken (in fulfillment of prophecy). Instead, they stabbed him in the spleen with a spear to make sure he was dead.

All that being said, we have to remember that this isn't history -- it's story (which served as history anciently). But it's not "news reporting." We simply don't know for sure. What we do know is that crucifixion was a common form of Roman terrorism.

 

[Nietzsche]

No. It specifically states that his legs were not broken (in fulfillment of prophecy). Instead, they stabbed him in the spleen with a spear to make sure he was dead.

Which wouldn't do anything had he just been near-death.

All that being said, we have to remember that this isn't history -- it's story (which served as history anciently). But it's not "news reporting." We simply don't know for sure. What we do know is that crucifixion was a common form of Roman terrorism.

Oh I know. But there is a grain of truth in these things.

 

[outhouse]

Allow me to elaborate & clarify.

Crucifixion was an extremely slow way to die. Because they expected the friends & family to buy their fellow off the cross. Something that happened far, far, far more than someone actually dying on the cross. So was it used as execution? In theory yes. But it rarely got that far out.

Can you provide credible sources please

 

[outhouse]

Crucifixion was an extremely slow way to die.

Yes and no. It depends on how bad a person is beat before they are put on a cross. many Roman crucifixions caused death quite quickly.

It was a punishment to set an example, and one not always need be alive to do such a thing.

 

[Nietzsche]

Can you provide credible sources please

Huh. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it.

Point conceded until I can find it.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yes and no. It depends on how bad a person is beat before they are put on a cross. many Roman crucifixions caused death quite quickly.

It was a punishment to set an example, and one not always need be alive to do such a thing.

Eh. If we assume the Biblical account is true of Jesus' upbringing and what have you, we know the following;

1. He was moderately wealthy. He could read & write during an era where that was a status symbol. Which means he probably also ate well.
2. He was a carpenter, lots of physical labour, lots of exercise. So we're looking at a pretty robust man.
3. You combine those two, being the very rough equivalent of middle-class during that day and yet also doing lots of heavy lifting and you've got a pretty ideal specimen of human male insofar as health goes.

This increases his odds of surviving the crucifixion, by how much I am unsure but I do not think it out of the realm of possibility that had the events occurred, they could have happened like this.

 

[outhouse]

He was moderately wealthy.

Yet some text states he was homeless and had no place to lay his head.

Other text states he told everyone to give everything away and travel with him without even a beggar bowl, which indicates some authors thought his followers were as poor as they come.

He could read & write during an era where that was a status symbol

His literacy is unknown.

Which means he probably also ate well

Not likely. Even in the nicer Hellenistic rich house, we see Harris lines on bones that show malnutrition.

In hovels like Nazareth, the malnutrition would be worse.

He was a carpenter

Nope. The word Tekton translates in this geographic location to displaced hand worker doing odd jobs, possibly repairing house, or possibly stone work rebuilding Sepphoris. Could include agrarian work as well when a land owner needed help.

However it was almost an insult to be called a Tekton, and they were classified as a step below a common peasant. [Reed, Borg, Shiffman, Meyer] usually renters who were kicked of previously held land.

lots of physical labour, lots of exercise.

Probably

This increases his odds of surviving the crucifixion

No. No one survived less a Roman official had them removed from the cross. There are only 3 known examples and 2 died. [Josephus]

 

[outhouse]

The socioeconomic models are highly debated in Galilee, and this is tied to literacy. You will see apologetically biased scholars leaning towards a more middle class Jesus, in a place where there was no middle class.

And scholars who use anthropology that state Jesus lived below a peasant as well as his fishermen friends who were one wrung up on a ladder above a common beggar. The fact its claimed he stays in Aramaic villages attest to some level of poverty in my opinion. Had there been text indicating he had visited Sepphoris and or Tiberius, I might suggest a better status.

We have factual evidence that Nazareth would have been a dump compared to Sepphoris as the windowless homes in Nazareth were built from crude fieldstones using mud and or feces for plaster and dirt floors covered with straw. Homes in Sepphoris on the other hand were for the wealthiest Hellenist having pools and frescos on floors and walls. The socioeconomic divide was steep between the two.

 

[Nietzsche]

The socioeconomic models are highly debated in Galilee, and this is tied to literacy. You will see apologetically biased scholars leaning towards a more middle class Jesus, in a place where there was no middle class.

And scholars who use anthropology that state Jesus lived below a peasant as well as his fishermen friends who were one wrung up on a ladder above a common beggar. The fact its claimed he stays in Aramaic villages attest to some level of poverty in my opinion. Had there been text indicating he had visited Sepphoris and or Tiberius, I might suggest a better status.

We have factual evidence that Nazareth would have been a dump compared to Sepphoris as the windowless homes in Nazareth were built from crude fieldstones using mud and or feces for plaster and dirt floors covered with straw. Homes in Sepphoris on the other hand were for the wealthiest Hellenist having pools and frescos on floors and walls. The socioeconomic divide was steep between the two.

There was I reason I bolded & italicized the 'very roughly'. Huge swathes between the two, but still likely better than others of his era.

 

[Faybull]

Eh. If we assume the Biblical account is true of Jesus' upbringing and what have you, we know the following;

1. He was moderately wealthy. He could read & write during an era where that was a status symbol. Which means he probably also ate well.
2. He was a carpenter, lots of physical labour, lots of exercise. So we're looking at a pretty robust man.
3. You combine those two, being the very rough equivalent of middle-class during that day and yet also doing lots of heavy lifting and you've got a pretty ideal specimen of human male insofar as health goes.

This increases his odds of surviving the crucifixion, by how much I am unsure but I do not think it out of the realm of possibility that had the events occurred, they could have happened like this.

Are we sure it specifically says "carpenter"? I recall that the word in Greek is more akin to "mason" than "carpenter", or that it means "artificer" and not specifically "carpenter".

 

[Nietzsche]

Are we sure it specifically says "carpenter"? I recall that the word in Greek is more akin to "mason" than "carpenter", or that it means "artificer" and not specifically "carpenter".

Either/or, both would suffice for my point, namely that there is some reason to believe he would've been relatively fit for the era.

 

[Faybull]

Either/or, both would suffice for my point, namely that there is some reason to believe he would've been relatively fit for the era.

Granted that may be, but being fit has nothing to do with surviving crucifixion.

 

[Nietzsche]

Granted that may be, but being fit has nothing to do with surviving crucifixion.

Endurance has nothing to do with attempting to survive a crucifixion?