My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[Ben_Masada]

John indeed was there, because he took Mary the Mother of Jesus to live with him for the rest of her life. He would not have done so without Jesus asking him to do so.

And of course you want me to take your word for it and forget all my Jewish upbriging, and above all, that Jesus was an observant Jew himself. Thanks, but no, thanks.

Ben:

 

[panoikei]

And Moses never existed. The sky is falling. We have 2 more years to live and then the earth will be destroyed so lets get on that space ship that comes to pick us up or we will be doomed.

Why do people feel compelled to disprove God so much?

Peace, And may God forgive you.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Where are you getting your information regarding Roman crucifixion practices. I’d like to see some reliable source material for your supporting facts.

Especially from Flavius Josephus. Why don’t you go to a good Library and check it out? Then there are many other good authors in Roman History. I have read a few of them. Cicero is a good one. But the best is Josephus for having been very actual.

The gospel account tells that blood and water poured out of the wound, which would indicate that death had already occurred, so it seems more plausible that the spear was used to confirm death, rather than hasten death.

All you have to do is to be a little more malicious in your analises of these things. The writers of the NT and the Fathers of the Church needed to document their Church and dug the Tanach for anything that could serve as a prophecy to fit the Christ of Paul in. Therefore, for the spear-piecing they found Zechariah 12:10 and just inserted it in by creating a fictitious custom, which the Romans never had. Read about “The Revolt of the Roman Slaves.” They crucified thousands for days non-stop. There was not even one mention of spear-piercing. Let’s think a little more with our minds and not with our hearts.

And is this theory of yours supposed to support the conclusion that Jesus did not die on the cross? If that is so, and Jesus was somehow spirited away by Joseph, then Jesus certainly would not have been up and walking around just days after being subjected to a scourging followed by a beating by the Roman cohort and the actual crucifixion itself. And would he have been able to walk with the disciples on the road from Jerusalem just days after these events?

If my theory does not support the conclusion that Jesus did not die on the cross, the NT is more crowded with contradictions than I thought it was. Luke says that Jesus spent 40 days before saying goodbye to his disciples and leave. Forty days was pretty much a fair time to recover, considering VIP treatment under the money power of a very rich man in Israel. Don’t forget that Joseph of Arimathea was taking care of tab.

And about being scourged by the Romans prior to crucifixion, Jesus was not the only one. That was a matter-of-course in the Roman agenda, if you read John 19:1.

Do you simply reject the NT documents out of hand because they are christian? Do you not give any historical significance to the documents?

That’s not true. I accept 20 percent of the NT as historically true and as legitimately coming from the lips of Jesus. I mean, those things in turne with his Faith, which was Judaism.
What I cannot accept is that he would contradict his own Faith.

Ben:

 

[paarsurrey]

The writers of the NT and the Fathers of the Church needed to document their Church and dug the Tanach for anything that could serve as a prophecy to fit the Christ of Paul in.

[Ben: [/COLOR]

Hi

I agree with you. How correct you are? In my opinion, please.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

If my theory does not support the conclusion that Jesus did not die on the cross, the NT is more crowded with contradictions than I thought it was. Luke says that Jesus spent 40 days before saying goodbye to his disciples and leave. Forty days was pretty much a fair time to recover, considering VIP treatment under the money power of a very rich man in Israel. Don’t forget that Joseph of Arimathea was taking care of tab.
Ben:

Hi

Again a very good point indeed. In my opinion,please

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

And about being scourged by the Romans prior to crucifixion, Jesus was not the only one. That was a matter-of-course in the Roman agenda, if you read John 19:1.

Do you simply reject the NT documents out of hand because they are christian? Do you not give any historical significance to the documents?

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by **paarsurrey: **
Hi

Yes, I forgive him. May GodAllahYHWH bless him!

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

No matter what you say in your posting, I believe you are a peaceful muslim.

Hi

Thank you swariffin, brother in humanity. I am learning to follow peaceful Moses and Jesus.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

And** even escape away to live happily ever after in India according** to Paarsurrey.

Hi

I think, it is a good new for the Catholics in my opinion, if they realize; no compulsion however.

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

 

[panoikei]

Especially from Flavius Josephus. Why don’t you go to a good Library and check it out? Then there are many other good authors in Roman History. I have read a few of them. Cicero is a good one. But the best is Josephus for having been very actual.

Ben:

I find it intersting that many people don’t know about the non-Christian writers during the early church. I used to have Josephus and Philo. Nonated them to my Protestant church many years ago. Didn’t need them because if I was solo scriptura then why would I need anything else. I’m back to being Catholic now…because of solo scrioptura that turns out to be very misleading. I now understand the reason for the Majisterium, Sacred Tradition (as opposed to man’s tradition) and Sacred Scripture.

I see this line of questioning to be along the same lines as “did Jesus ever exist”.
Peace.

 

[Thing]

Robert in SD:

The gospel account tells that blood and water poured out of the wound, which would indicate that death had already occurred, so it seems more plausible that the spear was used to confirm death, rather than hasten death.

Ben Masada:

All you have to do is to be a little more malicious in your analises of these things. The writers of the NT and the Fathers of the Church needed to document their Church and dug the Tanach for anything that could serve as a prophecy to fit the Christ of Paul in. Therefore, for the spear-piecing they found Zechariah 12:10 and just inserted it in by creating a fictitious custom, which the Romans never had. Read about “The Revolt of the Roman Slaves.” They crucified thousands for days non-stop. There was not even one mention of spear-piercing. Let’s think a little more with our minds and not with our hearts.

A simpler reason, which is usually the true one, is that Christ died sooner than expected as the Gospel states He did. And the reason for lancing instead of leaving the corpse on the cross was that someone of substance wanted the body back and got permission from Pilate to take it . The lance was used to ensure that the dead body was indeed dead.

 

[Thing]

Crucifixion in Roman times was applied mostly to slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians and foreigners–only very rarely to Roman citizens. Death, usually after 6 hours–4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones. The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.

From - The history and pathology of crucifixion

And when the body was pierced to ensure death, it was seen that blood and water flowed from the wound, showing that the body was dead prior to piercing, the blood having separated into blood and blood plasma.

 

[josie_L]

At least two, I guess. But I accept a legitimate one if you can bring it to me.

The guy who wrote the fourth gospel was a Gentile disciple of Paul’s. For two reasons, John did not write that gospel: First, John was a Nazarene and none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT, because of their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul.

And second, the Nazarenes never preached about those non-Jewish teachings of that gospel. Proof of it is that the Nazarenes coexisted peacefully with the Jerusalem Jews for about 30 years until Paul arrived and was nearly killed for preaching heresy. If you are not familiar with your NT, get back to me and I will insert the quotations for all the facts above.

Ben:

Hello Ben,

How did you come up with the fact that the Gospel of John was written by a disciple of Paul (you sound like Paarsurrey who believes the NT is one big Pauline conspiracy :tsktsk: ) What source did you use to derive this information? Please give me the names of said sources so I may read them too. Thank you.

 

[adrift]

Especially from Flavius Josephus. Why don’t you go to a good Library and check it out? Then there are many other good authors in Roman History. I have read a few of them. Cicero is a good one. But the best is Josephus for having been very actual.

And about being scourged by the Romans prior to crucifixion, Jesus was not the only one. That was a matter-of-course in the Roman agenda, if you read John 19:1.

Ben:

I doubt if there is anyone who says that Jesus alone was scourged. So I don’t see your point

Flavius Josephus
Is on line and does not verify what Ben is claiming. The Romans victims either remained on the cross until they literally rotted off or the bodies were released to relatives but only after they were speared.

 

[po18guy]

Are you saying that the gospel is the work of Paul? Paul is afraid of plagiarism, you know. Unlike Muhammad who like to copy from others and declare it the word of God.

Very true! Many, perhaps all of the false prophets have been accused of plagiarism, since they have no original and inspired words of their own. Along with Muhammad, Joseph Smith was also accused of this. The false prophets often change the nature of God with their words. Also, the false prophets always seem to benefit from their own words, as in polygamy.

On the contrary, Jesus was accused of being a revolutionary, since His words were a completely new way of perceiving man’s relationship with God. Those words did not change the nature of God - rather, they were the fulfillment of the nature which had been revealed through the earlier prophets.

 

[MHalsey]

–snip–

That’s not true. I accept 20 percent of the NT as historically true and as legitimately coming from the lips of Jesus. I mean, those things in turne with his Faith, which was Judaism.
What I cannot accept is that he would contradict his own Faith.

Ben:

I can understand where you might think this from a Jewish perspective. But from the Christian perspective, Jesus came to fulfill the covenant made to Abraham. And since Jesus is God, he also has the authority and ability to give us a New Covenant. An everlasting one, which in turn makes the old covenant obsolete.

I don’t expect you to agree with me. But since you are making erroneous claims about the New Testament, I figured it needed to be said.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I can understand where you might think this from a Jewish perspective. But from the Christian perspective, Jesus came to fulfill the covenant made to Abraham. And since Jesus is God, he also has the authority and ability to give us a New Covenant. An everlasting one, which in turn makes the old covenant obsolete.

I don’t expect you to agree with me. But since you are making erroneous claims about the New Testament, I figured it needed to be said.

Jesus did not establish any kind of covenant. He rather confirmed God’s Covenant with Israel. The Christian New Covenant was established by Paul. What Jesus came to fulfill, he did it as an example to all of us to do the same. Read Matthew
5:17-19 and stop digging more and more contradictions in the NT. Paul was the one who contradicted Jesus by saying that the Law was abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15)

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

I doubt if there is anyone who says that Jesus alone was scourged. So I don’t see your point

Flavius Josephus
Is on line and does not verify what Ben is claiming. The Romans victims either remained on the cross until they literally rotted off or the bodies were released to relatives but only after they were speared.

I read the link you suggested and it doesn’t say anything against my thread that it was not a Roman custom to spear-pierce the crucified. Stop looking for what they put on line and read Josephus books. I have read them all and I was really elated by. Try it yourself.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hello Ben,

How did you come up with the fact that the Gospel of John was written by a disciple of Paul (you sound like Paarsurrey who believes the NT is one big Pauline conspiracy :tsktsk: ) What source did you use to derive this information? Please give me the names of said sources so I may read them too. Thank you.

Jewish sources, Jewish life, Jewish laws, Jewish observance. 80 percent of those things in the fourth gospel are not Jewish. Therefore, John could not have written that gospel. John was Jewish. And on top of everything, a Nazarene Jew.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Crucifixion in Roman times was applied mostly to slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians and foreigners–only very rarely to Roman citizens. Death, usually after 6 hours–4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones. The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.

From - The history and pathology of crucifixion

And when the body was pierced to ensure death, it was seen that blood and water flowed from the wound, showing that the body was dead prior to piercing, the blood having separated into blood and blood plasma.

Yes, but the Cohot under that specific Centurion had somehow converted themselves to Jesus’ cause or to the money of Joseph of Arimathea in order not to cause any more harm to Jesus and just let Joseph remove him off the cross. Read Matthew 27:54. You guys are in the same trouble of the fly that got trapped in the spider’s web. The more you struggle the more you get trapped in your own contradictions.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

A simpler reason, which is usually the true one, is that Christ died sooner than expected as the Gospel states He did. And the reason for lancing instead of leaving the corpse on the cross was that someone of substance wanted the body back and got permission from Pilate to take it . The lance was used to ensure that the dead body was indeed dead.

Great! Now of thousands of crucified, Jesus was the only one to be spear-pierced. Have mercy! Besides, when did
the gospel state that, 60+ years after the fact? Think about something like that to be written 60 years later. Gosh! How powerful is faith to blind people!

Ben: