Jesus nailed to a cross? Evidence does not support it

[Lion IRC]

The Op is stupid just like the source article.
It claims "...None of the Gospels in the New Testament mentions whether Jesus was nailed or tied to the cross. "
What an ignorant claim. (And obviously false)


Impalement like that would have resulted in massive trauma and internal injuries that would have lead to a rapid death.
That's the opposite of the shock and awe brutality that a slow public torture was aiming to achieve.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Impalement like that would have resulted in massive trauma and internal injuries that would have lead to a rapid death.
That's the opposite of the shock and awe brutality that a slow public torture was aiming to achieve.

But beheadings lead to greater trauma and much more rapidder deathity, yet they still shock and awe with their brutality.

I really don't think you can gauge the reaction of the audience based on an objective evaluation of the condemned's subjective experience. No one watching an impalement will sigh with relief that 'it was over quick' and hope that's how they go when it's their time.

 

[skepticalbip]

Impalement like that would have resulted in massive trauma and internal injuries that would have lead to a rapid death.
That's the opposite of the shock and awe brutality that a slow public torture was aiming to achieve.

But beheadings lead to greater trauma and much more rapidder deathity, yet they still shock and awe with their brutality.

I really don't think you can gauge the reaction of the audience based on an objective evaluation of the condemned's subjective experience. No one watching an impalement will sigh with relief that 'it was over quick' and hope that's how they go when it's their time.

True. Anyone who is executed by whatever means or how rapid or slow the death will not be a repeat offender. Gruesome executions are meant to be deterrents - anyone who had thought it would be a good idea to commit the crime (mooning the emperor?) committed by the one who was executed is given reason to think better of it.

I wasn't aware that there were so many different forms of impalement until I checked Wiki. According to the Wiki article, people could live as long as eight days with some forms of impalement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement

 

[Bronzeage]

I always find these kinds of threads to be funny. The point of the Resurrection story is that Jesus was resurrected. This means he was dead and later, he was alive. It's simple enough to say, "That's crazy. Dead people don't come back to life," but that's sort of the whole reason everyone get excited about the idea.

There's really no rhetorical value in pointing out technical difficulties in the method used to kill him.

Whether Jesus was crucified or impaled, is really of little significance. The most it would mean would be a big redecorating project for all the churches of Christendom.

 

[couch_sloth]

Maybe Thomas actually asked Jesus to show his bunghole, and scribes later found it to be a bit too weird.... Thus the re-write.

 

[bilby]

The Op is stupid just like the source article.
It claims "...None of the Gospels in the New Testament mentions whether Jesus was nailed or tied to the cross. "
What an ignorant claim. (And obviously false)


Impalement like that would have resulted in massive trauma and internal injuries that would have lead to a rapid death.
That's the opposite of the shock and awe brutality that a slow public torture was aiming to achieve.

You are right. Crucifixion took many days - up to a week - to finally kill the victim.

It's even been known for apparently dead people to be cut down, and then to recover consciousness after a few days.

That must have been quite the surprise for the victim's friends; particularly in the era before modern medicine. I'm amazed that there aren't any stories about somebody 'rising from the dead' caused by that.

 

[credoconsolans]

Maybe Thomas actually asked Jesus to show his bunghole, and scribes later found it to be a bit too weird.... Thus the re-write.

Exactly!

 

[Horatio Parker]

There's really no rhetorical value in pointing out technical difficulties in the method used to kill him.

Whether Jesus was crucified or impaled, is really of little significance. The most it would mean would be a big redecorating project for all the churches of Christendom.

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

 

[skepticalbip]

There's really no rhetorical value in pointing out technical difficulties in the method used to kill him.

Whether Jesus was crucified or impaled, is really of little significance. The most it would mean would be a big redecorating project for all the churches of Christendom.

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

Not for a supernatural being. The Greek and Roman myths that a fair amount of Christianity borrowed from have plenty such resurrections. If the Phoenix can rise from the ashes then surly such a trick would be child's play for Jesus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

But Jesus was not recognized at first.
Which simply waking up after NEAR death wouldn't justify. The spear holes and nail holes wouldn't be that disfiguring.

But if he showed Doubting Thomas the scars on his neck from his decapitation, or the soft, unblemished skin from the post-immolation regeneration (Look! I'm not even circumcised any more!) it'd be the same story.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

Not for a supernatural being. The Greek and Roman myths that a fair amount of Christianity borrowed from have plenty such resurrections. If the Phoenix can rise from the ashes then surly such a trick would be child's play for Jesus.

That would make Jesus a Phoenix, which could present another set of problems, such as him not being human.

We divide the supernatural from the empirical, but ancient people didn't. Supernatural events and entities had their own rules, established by tradition.

I can't remember what authority, maybe Robert Price, said that the Thomas story was invented because there was a tradition that Thomas was Jesus' twin. So some could claim Jesus didn't really resurrect, that it was his twin. The Doubting Thomas story puts that speculation, as such, to rest.

I think crucifixion is a good fit. He suffers, like a human, but he remains whole and so has a body to return to.

I know this has a silly aspect to it and I'm not entirely serious, but I do think these were significant issues.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

But Jesus was not recognized at first.
Which simply waking up after NEAR death wouldn't justify. The spear holes and nail holes wouldn't be that disfiguring.

But if he showed Doubting Thomas the scars on his neck from his decapitation, or the soft, unblemished skin from the post-immolation regeneration (Look! I'm not even circumcised any more!) it'd be the same story.

Whether or not Jesus was recognized depends on the version you read. He was recognized in John.

So there, I've "proved" it.

I guess Jesus was lucky his legs weren't broken according to the usual practice, because he was already dead. He would've needed one of those little carts. Very awkward for a savior.

 

[credoconsolans]

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

Not for a supernatural being. The Greek and Roman myths that a fair amount of Christianity borrowed from have plenty such resurrections. If the Phoenix can rise from the ashes then surly such a trick would be child's play for Jesus.

Actually this was a concern for would-be converts. They worried about when the Kingdom was supposed to return, because when the early Christians said people would rise from their graves, their audiences were not filled with joy - more like terror because they naturally thought natural processes would continue and thus those folks rising from their graves would be bones or rotted corpses and they had no desire to spend eternity like that.

 

[Bronzeage]

There's really no rhetorical value in pointing out technical difficulties in the method used to kill him.

Whether Jesus was crucified or impaled, is really of little significance. The most it would mean would be a big redecorating project for all the churches of Christendom.

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

I don't see why. Death from crucifixion would actually be asphyxiation due to the chest muscle pulling tight over the lungs. This would be a slow process, so a good amount of brain damage would be present before the heart stopped beating. Any miraculous process that can repair damaged brain cells could certain reattach a severed head, or recover a body in fresh skin.

It's pretty silly to concede that a being could return from the dead, and then restrict it to only certain kinds of death.

There's a couple of instances in Anne Rice's vampire stories where an immortal being is injured beyond belief, and still recovered. If memory serves, in one case a vampire tried to commit suicide by flying toward the sun. He burst into flame and crashed to the ground, only to have to lie there until the healing process was complete. In another story, a vampire is drugged and fed to an alligator. The really fun part of this is, we are supposed to infer that he was conscious of the experience while progressing through the gut of an alligator. Coming back from that, is impressive.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's the problem with immortality. If you make people too immortal, it kind of takes away the suspense for their character because you know nothing is actually going to happen to them. Then you have to tie yourself in knots trying to justify how Batman is able to stand up to him in a fight.

 

[Barbarian]

Did anyone crack the joke yet about where did Doubting Thomas have to stick his finger, then?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not really. Resurrecting from decapitacion or immolation brings up awkward technical considerations.

I don't see why. Death from crucifixion would actually be asphyxiation due to the chest muscle pulling tight over the lungs. This would be a slow process, so a good amount of brain damage would be present before the heart stopped beating. Any miraculous process that can repair damaged brain cells could certain reattach a severed head, or recover a body in fresh skin.

It's pretty silly to concede that a being could return from the dead, and then restrict it to only certain kinds of death.

There's a couple of instances in Anne Rice's vampire stories where an immortal being is injured beyond belief, and still recovered. If memory serves, in one case a vampire tried to commit suicide by flying toward the sun. He burst into flame and crashed to the ground, only to have to lie there until the healing process was complete. In another story, a vampire is drugged and fed to an alligator. The really fun part of this is, we are supposed to infer that he was conscious of the experience while progressing through the gut of an alligator. Coming back from that, is impressive.

Sure, brain death as described by Hippocrates. Imbalance of the humours.

 

[couch_sloth]

Did anyone crack the joke yet about where did Doubting Thomas have to stick his finger, then?

Was it really his finger?

 

[credoconsolans]

Did anyone crack the joke yet about where did Doubting Thomas have to stick his finger, then?

Couch_sloth beat you to it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Residents of Turin will be green with envy if the fabled Skewer of Shish ever turns up.