My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[Thing]

Great! Now of thousands of crucified, Jesus was the only one to be spear-pierced. Have mercy!
Ben:

Here let me highlight the bit of *actual *history that you missed…

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

Ben:

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!

You must be very young, Ben, if you think you wont remenber the day they killed your wife/son/brother/God in all its painful reality.
I bet your granny remembers when you were born.

 

[Thing]

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:

I think you are in worse trouble. What you have just written is not history. Nobody at that time recorded those events you claim.
Two thousand years after that event you have appointed yourself as the man to write a new, fictional history. That is called a lie, Ben. And I’m sure your religion does not approve of lying.

 

[Valke2]

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.

In Judaism, it was (and is) a big no no to leave a body hanging on a tree/crucified for more than a day. I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

 

[Ben_Masada]

In Judaism, it was (and is) a big no no to leave a body hanging on a tree/crucified for more than a day. I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

Yes, but the move to rush the death of the crucified was Jewish and not Roman. And the Jews did not use spears but the break-leg method.

In the case of Jesus it didn’t happen because of Joseph of Arimathea and that Centurion. (Mat. 27:54)

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

I think you are in worse trouble. What you have just written is not history. Nobody at that time recorded those events you claim.
Two thousand years after that event you have appointed yourself as the man to write a new, fictional history. That is called a lie, Ben. And I’m sure your religion does not approve of lying.

Two thousand years after the event! What difference does it make from 60 years after the alleged facts? If thouse alleged facts had been written at least 60 days after the
events I could give it a shot of credibility. But 60 years is as bad as 2,000 years. You can’t imagine how many lies there are in these records.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Here let me highlight the bit of *actual *history that you missed…

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

 

[adrift]

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:

It doesn’t support your thread is that what makes you so angry? I believe you said that it claimed that spearing wasn’t used. It doesn’t mention spearing at all. Of course it doesn’t, that would go against history and Josephus is a good historian. Is what on line not the book? Is it different how? I have read the book that is why I knew that it didn’t contain what you indicated it did.

 

[Thing]

Dramatic description of a crucifixion. I was aware
that some of the crucified would stay even up to 4 days on the cross. Jesus didn’t spend even 3 hours.

The actual, real, history of crucifixion tells us that the crucified person died within a time period of anywhere between 6 hours - 4 days after being crucified.
Christ was arrested the evening before His crucifixion after suffering agonies whilst praying in the Garden of Gethsemane.
On the following morning He was scourged, - crowned with thorns - and beaten. He then carried His cross to Calvary falling from exhaustion several times along the way and was crucified at 9 o’clock in the morning and died at three o’clock in the evening. He spent a period of 6 hours on the cross before He died and that after several hours of torture before His crucifixion.
His death after 6 hours falls exactly within the historically described time period of death by crucifixion.

Medicine (modern not imaginary) tells us people die from shock trauma, in fact it is the leading cause of death in young to middle-age people in the US. It occurs especially fatally after severe blood/ fluid loss, as per the scourging/crucifixion account.
Ben Mesada:

And what is that supposed to mean, that they would have remembered their god Jesus after 60 years? The idea that Jesus was god started with Paul 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Therefore, what the gospel writers remembered was about the Pauline news that Jesus had been god. How is it so hard to understand? And how is this supposed to make sense?

Ben:

If you are jewish the concept of remembering someone over a long time period will not be a foreign notion to you. You have remembered God for three thousand years so far, at least. And you think someone else would forget Him after sixty years.

However, only one of the four Gospels was written about sixty years after the fact.
The earliest Gospel was written about thirty years after the event, and the earliest Scripture was composed no earlier than 45 AD, or, twelve years after the crucifixion.

 

[adrift]

Thing;4843559:

Here let me highlight the bit of *actual *

history that you missed…

Dramatic description of a crucifixion. I was aware
that some of the crucified would stay even up to 4 days on the cross. Jesus didn’t spend even 3 hours. But if you read Matthew 27:54, there is no way the Centurion or any of his cohot would spear-pierce Jesus after that confession. Then, the money of Joseph of Arimathea did the rest. Romans were extremely corrupt
at the sight of money. In fact, who isn’t? And Joseph had a lot of that to spare.
Jesus was on the cross for six hours. It was a matter of death for a Centurion to shirk his duty. Hardly worth the money.

COLOR=“Blue”]And what is that supposed to mean, that they would have remembered their god Jesus after 60 years? The idea that Jesus was god started with Paul 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Therefore, what the gospel writers remembered was about the Pauline news that Jesus had been god. How is it so hard to understand? And how is this supposed to make sense?

Ben:

Jesus revealed Himself as God so there was not a 30 year wait. As I have mentioned before and you failed to answer the Torah was written how long after the happenings? Oral traditions are reliable even if not written for a long time after and thirty years is hardly a long time after. But it didn’t take 30 years anyway that is your unsubstantiated claim. Please start documenting your claims.

 

[Ben_Masada]

It doesn’t support your thread is that what makes you so angry? I believe you said that it claimed that spearing wasn’t used. It doesn’t mention spearing at all. Of course it doesn’t, that would go against history and Josephus is a good historian. Is what on line not the book? Is it different how? I have read the book that is why I knew that it didn’t contain what you indicated it did.

Adrift, Josephus knew the Romans as you know your own family. If it were a Roman custom to spear-pierce the crucified, Jospehus would mention it. That’s my point. I also read a whole book about the revolt of the Roman slaves. At the end of the war they crucified thousands of slaves uninterruptedly and not a single mention of a spear-piercing.

Why was the leg-breaking mentioned and not the spear-piercing? Because the leg-breaking method was a Jewish custom. You see? Not to hard to grasp the point. But spear-piercing was not a Roman custom. And it didn’t happen with Jesus. If not for any other reason, the one that the gospel writer plagiarized from Zechariah 12:10. And here there is another reason to prove that this gospel writer was a Gentile. A Jew would know much better that Zechariah does not refer to piercing of crucified.

Ben:

 

[adrift]

Adrift, Josephus knew the Romans as you know your own family. If it were a Roman custom to spear-pierce the crucified, Jospehus would mention it. That’s my point. I also read a whole book about the revolt of the Roman slaves. At the end of the war they crucified thousands of slaves uninterruptedly and not a single mention of a spear-piercing.

Why was the leg-breaking mentioned and not the spear-piercing? Because the leg-breaking method was a Jewish custom. You see? Not to hard to grasp the point. But spear-piercing was not a Roman custom. And it didn’t happen with Jesus. If not for any other reason, the one that the gospel writer plagiarized from Zechariah 12:10. And here there is another reason to prove that this gospel writer was a Gentile. A Jew would know much better that Zechariah does not refer to piercing of crucified.

Ben:

You are not using proof only conjecture. Josephus not mentioning it doesn’t prove it didn’t happen. He never describes a crucifixion… that I remember. If he did please point to the exact citation. You say it was not a Roman custom and I have pointed out more than once that it was. If the body was taken away, before it rotted away, than it was pierced to make sure of death. Crurifracture was the common way that Romans ended crucifixion.

 

[Valke2]

For what it is worth, I would think that the piercing of Jesus did not happen. It’s mentioned in only one gospel and it seems to be an event that was inserted to show the fullfillment of a prophecy, which makes it suspicious to me.

Of course, if I was a christian by faith that would be a different story.

 

[Valke2]

You are not using proof only conjecture. Josephus not mentioning it doesn’t prove it didn’t happen. He never describes a crucifixion… that I remember. If he did please point to the exact citation. You say it was not a Roman custom and I have pointed out more than once that it was. If the body was taken away, before it rotted away, than it was pierced to make sure of death. Crurifracture was the common way that Romans ended crucifixion.

Actually, most descriptions that we have about crucificixions come from Joseph (outside the gospels).

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4843768:

Jesus was on the cross for six hours. It was a matter of death for a Centurion to shirk his duty. Hardly worth the money.

Jesus revealed Himself as God so there was not a 30 year wait. As I have mentioned before and you failed to answer the Torah was written how long after the happenings? Oral traditions are reliable even if not written for a long time after and thirty years is hardly a long time after. But it didn’t take 30 years anyway that is your unsubstantiated claim. Please start documenting your claims.

Hey Adrift, do not blame me but the Catholic church itself. I have here the New America version of the Bible, Saint Joseph edition with prefaces to the four gospels with the following dates for their writings: Mark in the year 70 CE. After the destruction of the Temple. This is 40 years after Jesus was gone. |Luke in the year 75 CE. Matthew in the year 85 CE. And John between 90 and 100 CE. Revelation already in the Second Century.

Ben:

 

[adrift]

adrift;4844651:

Hey Adrift, do not blame me but the Catholic church itself. I have here the New America version of the Bible, Saint Joseph edition with prefaces to the four gospels with the following dates for their writings: Mark in the year 70 CE. After the destruction of the Temple. This is 40 years after Jesus was gone. |Luke in the year 75 CE. Matthew in the year 85 CE. And John between 90 and 100 CE. Revelation already in the Second Century.

Ben:

That is a bible edition not the Catholic Church speaking. There is a great debate on it and I doubt that they use CE since that has no real meaning. What is Common? At any rate I don’t except that dating but it isn’t germane anyway the point was best expressed by thing

If you are jewish the concept of remembering someone over a long time period will not be a foreign notion to you. You have remembered God for three thousand years so far, at least. And you think someone else would forget Him after sixty years.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Thing;4843559:

Here let me highlight the bit of *actual *

history that you missed…

Dramatic description of a crucifixion. I was aware
that some of the crucified would stay even up to 4 days on the cross.** Jesus didn’t spend even 3 hours**. But if you read Matthew 27:54, there is no way the Centurion or any of his cohot would spear-pierce Jesus after that confession. Then, the money of Joseph of Arimathea did the rest. Romans were extremely corrupt
at the sight of money. In fact, who isn’t? And Joseph had a lot of that to spare.

And what is that supposed to mean, that they would have remembered their god Jesus after 60 years? The idea that Jesus was god started with Paul 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Therefore, what the gospel writers remembered was about the Pauline news that Jesus had been god. How is it so hard to understand? And how is this supposed to make sense?

Ben:

Ok, amusing.

Paul started that Jesus was God…

I believe St John stated that when St Thomas saw the crucified Jesus after he had previously said he couldnt believe He rose again, he exclained ‘My Lord and MY GOD…’ when he saw Him.

And since you realise of course for Thomas to exclaim this out of excitement without referring to Christ would have been a sin for him. Since it breaks the Ten Commandments ‘Thou shalt not take thy Lord thy God’s name in vain.’

Ok, so Ben when are you going to actually read the scriptures?

Anyway - thank you for prooving another prophecy was fulfilled in that Jesus died after 3 hours.

Here is how - for in order for the Jews to bury their dead BEFORE the Sabbath - they had to be killed immediately prior to sundown before the Sabbath began.

SO - even if historians might suggest they could be hung on the cross for 4 days - there was absolutely no way the Romans would have besmirched their religious practices by allowing their dead to die on the Sabbath knowing the Jews would HAVE to leave them hang for all that time til sundown on Saturday…since they could not even wrap the dead on the Sabbath…nor annoint them with spices.

Ahhhh - but that is precisely how yet again Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that His legs would not be broken.
He would become the unblemished Lamb. According to the Passover - the Lamb cannot have broken legs.

BUT now as I explained and maybe you actually took the time to learn something - Jesus died on Friday and because He died at 3 o’clock and not closer to sunset - His legs were never in NEED to be broken since breaking the legs would only hasten the death of the criminal hanging on a cross. [Well Wisdom also prophecies His legs wouldnt be broken]

Which is why the soldier simply checked His death by spearing Him in the side.

And did you know you just quoted a prophecy?? Another one about His death which HE could NOT deliberately nor accidentally fulfil [mathematically impossible to do so] if He was not the One Annointed to fulfill this destiny?

Peace.

 

[adrift]

Actually, most descriptions that we have about crucificixions come from Joseph (outside the gospels).

I know he spoke about crucifixions but I am unaware of an actual description. Would you please provide the book and page if possible.
I know he also tried to rescue some friends who were crucified but was only able to save one.

 

[adrift]

For what it is worth, I would think that the piercing of Jesus did not happen. It’s mentioned in only one gospel and it seems to be an event that was inserted to show the fulfillment of a prophecy, which makes it suspicious to me.

Of course, if I was a Christian by faith that would be a different story.

I can see your point but one other thing to consider the one Gospel is from John who actually was a witness that is why I believe there is so much more detail.

 

[josie_L]

adrift;4844651:

Hey Adrift, do not blame me but the Catholic church itself. I have here the New America version of the Bible, Saint Joseph edition with prefaces to the four gospels with the following dates for their writings: Mark in the year 70 CE. After the destruction of the Temple. This is 40 years after Jesus was gone. |Luke in the year 75 CE. Matthew in the year 85 CE. And John between 90 and 100 CE. Revelation already in the Second Century.

Ben:

Maybe you’re hard of reading but Adrift answered your question. The apostles passed on the teachings of Christ as well as the details of his life orally, and then they and others eventually inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Gospels. Our deposit of faith is composed of the oral and written word. You state that Mark was written 40 years after Christ resurrected and the other Gospels some years later. Do you know that most historical documents/manuscripts were written hundred of years after the actual events, and yet are considered reliable by Historians. The New Testament manuscripts (and the dates in which they were written) were unique in that they were written so close to the actual event. You may want to read “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. He started off as an Atheist.

 

[Valke2]

I know he spoke about crucifixions but I am unaware of an actual description. Would you please provide the book and page if possible.
I know he also tried to rescue some friends who were crucified but was only able to save one.

here’s a link to all his references to crucifixion. I didn’t say he gave complete descriptions, just the most complete we have (putting aside the gospels).

religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/cruc-josephus.html