I would have thought the "spear" in the side, would have guaranteed death. The roman soldier was
making sure it seems. All that posting and you forgot the spear.
No, I didn't actually. I pointed out that it was a later embellishment. There is no spear or piercing of his side in the synoptics, just in John. Regardless, that supposedly occurred right at the end, so even if it were true, that does not necessarily mean it was a fatal blow, particularly when you factor in (again) that Joseph cleaned and wrapped Jesus' body in medicinal linens (bandages, essentially). They called them burial linens in John, but potato/potato:
With Pilate’s permission, [Joseph] came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
Holy crap that's a LOT of myrrh and aloe, both of which have significant antibacterial healing properties, particularly in regard to the kinds of wounds Jesus supposedly had inflicted upon him (i.e., multiple lacerations from the thorns in his skull and from being beaten and whipped; the nail holes supposedly in his feet and/or wrists or hands; etc., and yes, even his side "piercing" if it actually happened):
41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Oh, well, how convenient. And yet further evidence that Jesus' true condition (e.g., coma) could easily have been missed by either man in their certainty that he was dead and short time handling him from one place to the cave.
In regard to the supposed "piercing," note how desperate the author is to try and convince the reader:
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
Really! I swear. Honest. It's the truth and he knows it and anyone who knows they are telling the truth obviously must be telling the truth and he came up to me of his own volition and said, "Man, is this ever the truth, I tell you! That happened."
So, according to the author of John, evidently some guy
watching the soldiers do this in turn gave "testimony" to what he witnessed and he did so specifically so that the readers of John's gospel would believe him.
But why wouldn't anyone believe him? And why in the world is it referred to as "testimony"? He's just telling the author of John, supposedly, that he saw some soldiers doing a routine thing.
Which means that there clearly must have been--such as in Paul's time--members of the cult that did not believe Jesus was actually dead when Joseph took him down off the cross. Why else add in an unnecessary assurance and sequence of events that doesn't exist in any of the earlier versions and over emphasize the fact that it's "testimony" and the truth and further that the man
knows he tells the truth (is that even a thing; who doesn't know they are telling the truth after all) and, most hyperbolically "testifies so that you also may believe"?
Believe that a soldier took his spear to stab a crucified man to see if he was dead? What's not to believe about that?
But it comes clear when you realize, he's NOT testifying that Jesus was dead and that the soldier made sure of it. He's testifying that a soldier "pierced" Jesus' side with a spear instead of breaking his bones. Why does either matter? Because the author of John is bizarrely trying to tie it to prophecy. He states it openly:
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”
Now, the problem with that, of course, as with ALL such attempts to fit Jesus into Jewish prophecy is that, neither of those references could possibly refer to Jesus. The first one is just irrelevant. The alleged soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones because they thought he was already dead.
And--btw--the fact that Jesus
appeared dead to the soldiers by looking at him, but they supposedly took the extra step to confirm it proves my earlier points that even trained soldiers well versed in seeing dead men could not simply tell by looking up at him whether or not he was actually dead.
But back to the prophecy that wasn't. "Not one of his bones will be broken" is actually a reference to three different "Old" testament books: Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20, and Exodus 12:46.
Let's do last first:
Exodus 12:46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.
That's a reference to the passover
dinner:
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:
“No foreigner may eat it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident or a hired worker may not eat it.
46 “It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it.
48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”
50 All the Israelites did just what the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. 51 And on that very day the Lord brought the Israelites out of Egypt by their divisions.
Yes, we all know Jesus was compared to a sacrificial lamb, but this is a reference to how they should
eat the lamb. And yes, we all know the weird cannibalism in the eucharist, but there is no possible way that this passage is a prophecy about Jesus, unless Jesus is being cooked on the cross for everyone to actually eat him, not bizarrely metaphorically eat him in some ritualized version of a passover dinner.
Jesus didn't say, "Take this bread and eat of it, for it is my body, but be sure not to break my bones when you do so..."
Psalm 34:20 is:
he protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.
In context?
Psalm 34 is:
Of David. When he pretended to be insane before Abimelek, who drove him away, and he left.
Ok. Weird. So what is David saying in his feigned insanity?
I sought the Lord, and he answered me; he delivered me from all my fears....Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
And so he does:
The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are attentive to their cry;
16 but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to blot out their name from the earth.
17 The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them;
he delivers them from all their troubles.
18 The Lord is close to the brokenhearted
and saves those who are crushed in spirit.
19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The Lord will rescue his servants;
no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.
Again, NOT a prophecy. It is merely David explaining that God will protect any person who is
righteous, but it's not a prophecy about a divine messiah--and supposed "son" of Jehovah--incarnating into flesh and then being inexplicably
killed.
So far, we have a reference to how Jews are supposed to eat their dinner and that Jehovah will protect the righteous' bones. Evidently not the
rest of the body in Jesus' case, just his bones. And that from someone pretending to be insane, no less.
Now, Numbers 9:12. Which is just another reference to how to eat:
12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations.
In context:
6 But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 7 and said to Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be kept from presenting the Lord’s offering with the other Israelites at the appointed time?”
8 Moses answered them, “Wait until I find out what the Lord commands concerning you.”
9 Then the Lord said to Moses, 10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, 11 but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13 But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time.
It's really about being unclean due to a dead body and how long to wait before eating the ritual meal.
So, again, NOT a prophecy about the future existence of Jehovah incarnated in his "son" on earth and then that "God-son" somehow being killed by Romans (but not having his legs broken because they are taking care to prepare and eat him properly).
Now, on to "They will look on the one they have pierced." This is from
Zechariah 12, which
begins with this blatant qualification:
A prophecy: The word of the Lord concerning Israel.
The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares: 2 “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.
Got that? So, it's Jehovah speaking. Clear? And He is talking about a day of reckoning. There are several "On that days" in there, but I'll skip to the particular quote from John in context:
6 “On that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume all the surrounding peoples right and left, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.
7 “The Lord will save the dwellings of Judah first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants may not be greater than that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them. 9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives.
So, again, on the day of Jesus' death, when did the "clans of Judah" become a "firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch" that "consume all the surrounding peoples right and left" leaving Jerusalem intact? Where is the weeping of every clan (and their wives, no less)?
Let's add in another "on that day":
On that day I will strike every horse with panic and its rider with madness,” declares the Lord. “I will keep a watchful eye over Judah, but I will blind all the horses of the nations. 5 Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘The people of Jerusalem are strong, because the Lord Almighty is their God.’
So, what happened to all the blind horses and the presumably thousands of now insane riders? I certainly hope Joseph didn't bring a horse to transport Jesus' body.
ALL of that added in to explain away what evidenty must have been a primary question among the gentiles circa 100 CE. Why didn't the soldiers break Jesus legs on the cross in order to make sure that he was dead?
And the "answer" is to try and falsely equate being stabbed with a spear with a "piercing" (because that's the word that was used in one of the books of the Torah) and because when you eat lamb on passover you need to be careful not to break any of the animal's bones.
You know, like when Roman soldiers cook and eat Jesus' body? Samey samey. So that's why he's God.
Btw, think any of the Roman soldiers were circumcised? Because, if not, there could be no sacrifice of the pesach lamb (or goat, which Jesus is never compared to for some unknown reason).