• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Really Crucified

Faybull

Well-Known Member
Endurance has nothing to do with attempting to survive a crucifixion?


Not at all. Death doesn't really care about that at all.
But I would imagine it easier for a skinny man to endure it more so that one who is muscular. As far as the breathing goes.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Not at all. Death doesn't really care about that at all.
But I would imagine it easier for a skinny man to endure it more so that one who is muscular. As far as the breathing goes.
Eh. I am by no means a physician despite my frequent trips to them. It just seems to me that someone in decent shape would be able to survive longer. Your breathing can slow to the point of being impossible to feel without fine instruments. And if you're still breathing, you're still living so long as you've got enough blood. There being heavier would be helpful.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
Eh. I am by no means a physician despite my frequent trips to them. It just seems to me that someone in decent shape would be able to survive longer. Your breathing can slow to the point of being impossible to feel without fine instruments. And if you're still breathing, you're still living so long as you've got enough blood. There being heavier would be helpful.

Wouldn't the muscle mass, especially in the chest, restrict breathing more than one who is skinny? Especially when the pressure is on the torso as such?


Okay, I see. Being fit yes, muscular perhaps is what I was thinking of in the term of fit. So yes, perhaps being in good physical shape might have an effect on endurance.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't the muscle mass, especially in the chest, restrict breathing more than one who is skinny? Especially when the pressure is on the torso as such?


Okay, I see. Being fit yes, muscular perhaps is what I was thinking of in the term of fit. So yes, perhaps being in good physical shape might have an effect on endurance.
So fit, perhaps. But robust, probably would have a negative attached with it in terms of crucifixion.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Wouldn't the muscle mass, especially in the chest, restrict breathing more than one who is skinny? Especially when the pressure is on the torso as such?


Okay, I see. Being fit yes, muscular perhaps is what I was thinking of in the term of fit. So yes, perhaps being in good physical shape might have an effect on endurance.
I am not a physician, but something I do know is that breathing is done by the movement of the muscles in the chest. Without those muscles, your lungs can't take in air. They work like a sort of bellows system.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
I am not a physician, but something I do know is that breathing is done by the movement of the muscles in the chest. Without those muscles, your lungs can't take in air. They work like a sort of bellows system.


Diaphragm yes, but this isn't something that would qualify as an attribute of being robust. And the other muscles are between the ribs I think, not the outer chest muscles of a robust man or muscular man. I am not a physician either. Interesting though as to what qualifies as an endurance measure of crucifixion.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Are we sure it specifically says "carpenter"?

We have a Koine Greek word "Tekton" describing an Aramaic peasant Galilean. Its use in Nazareth is quite vague but cultural anthropology has some ideas.

In later Koine Greek speaking communities it can translate to "artisan" which can apply to carpenters. Again a vague term used cross culturally.

But we have a few issues. One there is no wood per say in Nazareth and little furniture was used, and had he been a wood worker they might have quoted him as being a "Tekton of wood" same for stone if that is all he did, "Tekton of stone" We also have hints from the gospels as they evolved with time, it is almost like we see them trying to hide this Tekton title as if they were embarrassed about it. The later authors possibly tried to minimize this from its original phrase.

The Bible and Interpretation - National Geographic’s “Jesus: the Man” — A Review

As scholars have recently noted, the word usually translated “carpenter” (tekton) can also mean someone who worked with his hands, or a stone worker. As Joseph may have done stonework and manual labor rather than being a craftsman with wood, this would have put him in the lowest of the lower class. Therefore, the family Jesus grew up in would not have owned land, but they would have been subsistence farmers accustomed to menial labor. According to Stephen Patterson, the family of Jesus was a step below the normal peasant. This being the case, neither Joseph nor Jesus was a carpenter; they were more likely workers with stone and general manual labor.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
We have a Koine Greek word "Tekton" describing an Aramaic peasant Galilean. Its use in Nazareth is quite vague but cultural anthropology has some ideas.

In later Koine Greek speaking communities it can translate to "artisan" which can apply to carpenters. Again a vague term used cross culturally.

But we have a few issues. One there is no wood per say in Nazareth and little furniture was used, and had he been a wood worker they might have quoted him as being a "Tekton of wood" same for stone if that is all he did, "Tekton of stone" We also have hints from the gospels as they evolved with time, it is almost like we see them trying to hide this Tekton title as if they were embarrassed about it. The later authors possibly tried to minimize this from its original phrase.

The Bible and Interpretation - National Geographic’s “Jesus: the Man” — A Review

As scholars have recently noted, the word usually translated “carpenter” (tekton) can also mean someone who worked with his hands, or a stone worker. As Joseph may have done stonework and manual labor rather than being a craftsman with wood, this would have put him in the lowest of the lower class. Therefore, the family Jesus grew up in would not have owned land, but they would have been subsistence farmers accustomed to menial labor. According to Stephen Patterson, the family of Jesus was a step below the normal peasant. This being the case, neither Joseph nor Jesus was a carpenter; they were more likely workers with stone and general manual labor.



Interesting. Thanks for the information.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
You do understand that an egg is fertilized by sperm?
I can't tell if you are using sarcasm or not.
Actually the usual reality is that sperm is required and God could have created that but he also could have just paired up DNA with the egg DNA to produce a new being without having to create a sperm.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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.
I believe soldiers were quite fmiliar with the concept of killing a person and the one who pierced Jesus in the side to make sure He was dead most likely aimed for the heart.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I believe soldiers were quite fmiliar with the concept of killing a person and the one who pierced Jesus in the side to make sure He was dead most likely aimed for the heart.
I think they would've mentioned if a soldier decided to stab him in the heart with a spear. But instead it just says "pieced his side". There is a significant difference in orders of magnitude between those things.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Read 1 Corinthians 15. This will explain it. But dont forget, there were witnesses who saw him when he was raised. He walked the earth for 40 days until he went up to Heaven. (Acts 1). Paul says, If he didnt raise from the dead, we are still in our sins. Because when we get baptised, we are baptised into the death and resurrection of Christ.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Didn't they find the sign that said "king of the Jews" affixed to a crucifix and confirmed there was a Yeshua crucified by pilot? (swear I remember reading this from a credible, secular source)

Debating whether it was actually truly him or not is like debating the resurrection, no one will ever know because there is no concrete proof. It's a matter of purely faith, not facts.

Dear nobody,
The matter of great faith would indicate Yeshua never was crucified. His prayer to his Father was to "let this cup pass me".
 

we-live-now

Active Member

According to the original words in Matthew 27:42 and Mark 15:32, the Christ is STILL on the cross right now at this very present moment. The word "now" in these verses is the Greek word "nyn" which means right now at this very present moment. Do you believe this?

I do. I see scripture reveals the TRUE cross is a spiritual cross in the spiritual realm and not a natural cross in the natural realm. The true "crucifixion" is the dividing of his spiritual body into 4 parts or realms. The original spiritual man became separated into body, soul, spirit and master spirit. See Mark 15:24-25 and John 19:23. Christ is the LAST Adam and just as all people were in the first Adam, all people have been placed into the last Adam. His body is still on the spiritual cross dying. This is the very death of every man regardless of their beliefs.

The natural man see's Jesus as a single natural man (and God may have provided a "natural" man to die 2000 years ago for those people). However, the spiritual man sees Jesus as the original, unique spiritually "begotten" or "birthed" Son (Spirit) of God himself. All of creation is "in" him. Col 3:11. Study the very words very closely in the 4 gospels of who was actually crucified. Notice how often it refers to "him" and not "Jesus"?

I believe Jesus is a powerful spiritual "name" or "body" of the father himself that we are "baptized" or placed into by "John". The first baptism is into the death (under law) of the natural body (his body/flesh) but through the process of "death" with him, we will also have his life. If one seriously studies scripture in the original language and tries everything to simply believe (reconcile as one) it, they will arrive here.

Once his body finally dies (all the "old' creation), then all the law will be fulfilled. This body is all of mankind and the current creation. I am not a trained theologian. I just love God and his very Word. I believe he is very good and he can do anything he wants. His Word reveals it if we study it closely ourselves. I shared more online at: www.kickedoutofchurch.com.

God bless my friends.
Duane
 

outhouse

Atheistically
the TRUE cross is a spiritual cross in the spiritual realm and not a natural cross in the natural realm

But do you have anything credible as a source for this? Opinion means little here.

As it stands the REAL historical account, has Jesus death happening on a real cross.
 

we-live-now

Active Member
But do you have anything credible as a source for this? Opinion means little here.

As it stands the REAL historical account, has Jesus death happening on a real cross.

What guidelines do you have for "credible source"?

I didn't put my blog url as a "credible source", but rather for anyone who wanted to read more. Ultimately, we all have to decide in our own hearts what is true or not.

I don't know if you are a "believer" (or what most call a "Christian) or not. Judging by your name, I would say no. If you aren't then scripture would "not be a credible reference" either. But, even when I do quote scripture to supposed true believers, they don't believe it anyway.

So, what is a "credible source" to you?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't know if you are a "believer"

Ones belief has nothing to do with what is credible or not. You do not believe in the same thing as most Abrahamic theist, but that is not why I have issue with your statements. It is the statements themselves.

So, what is a "credible source" to you?

They are called scholars or historians, people who create history from the evidence we have.

What guidelines do you have for "credible source"?

Not opinion.
 
Top