My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[adrift]

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

Thank you for the link. I am sorry I didn’t think I implied that he gave a complete description only that he didn’t give any. All it says is that they were crucified it doesn’t give any details or description.
Ben said

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.

I think this is week because he never described a crucifixion just said they happened.
I am interested if he actually described anything that happened at a crucifixion besides the whippings. As far as I know your link is accurate, it does not prove Ben’s point that he would have mentioned it. It doesn’t mention many things about crucifixion.

 

[Valke2]

Thank you for the link. I am sorry I didn’t think I implied that he gave a complete description only that he didn’t give any. All it says is that they were crucified it doesn’t give any details or description.

As far as I know, that link has everything that Josephus wrote about crucifixions. I agree that it doesn’t prove Ben’s point.

 

[adrift]

A Review:

No Piercing At Jesus’ Side
i

Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn’t care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

According to Valke2 the reason we know about crucifixion outside of the New Testament is Joseph wrote about it. However, he doesn’t go into detail. Since the bible is also a source about crucifixion we know that spear-piercing was indeed practiced by the Romans.

2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

I have never heard of such a tradition but that it might be one among Jews would not surprise me. However, I would like evidence that such a tradition exist. It is highly unlikely that a Centurion would be bribed when it meant his life. You are claiming that Jesus didn’t die on the cross. Would he believe he wouldn’t be found out? The officials wouldn’t hear that Jesus was still alive? No that makes no sense. He would value his life more than money no matter how much was offered.

3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord perce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That’s in Matthew 27:54. Besides, there was no such a Roman custom to spear-pierce a crucified to check if he was dead.

It has already been established that it was a custom to spear a crucified person before the body was released to family members.
You are assuming that the Centurion speared Him after the events that made them exclaim that He was the Son of God. There is no evidence of that.

The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus’ side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by either the writer of the Gospel 50+ years after Jesus had been gone or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben:

Your evidence fails to prove what you would like it to. The fact remains that being the Lamb of God none of His bones were broken fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Ben_Masada]

A Review:

According to Valke2 the reason we know about crucifixion outside of the New Testament is Joseph wrote about it. However, he doesn’t go into detail. Since the bible is also a source about crucifixion we know that spear-piercing was indeed practiced by the Romans.

 

[swariffin]

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:

The history of the Nazarenes was only the Jewish idea about Christianity. Why do the Jewish concern about Christianity, anyway. John was the disciple of Jesus, for sure, a nazarene’s or not. John did not wrote the gospel, because in John’s teaching, your idea is proven false. No wonder you reject it.

Paul did come to Jerusalem and met Peter. Peter did approve the teaching of having no need for circumcision for non-Jewish Christian. And, Peter was never condemned for that. Why John had to go to Efesus if he was peaceful living with the Jewish at that time.

Off course the Christian were peaceful at that time. The time is still hot for the followers of Jesus to be persecuted. They did not dare so much revealing their belief in Jesus. In the eye of the Jewish, the Christian indeed peaceful. Like any minority living in Muslims majority countries.

 

[swariffin]

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:

If the Jewish believe in Jesus’ teaching, then there would be no Judaism, Ben.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

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

Thanks

Base on the speculative story of Joseph bribing the Roman soldiers from Ben? He himself can only say “a tradition” of Joseph bribing the soldiers. If you based you belief on speculation, then I respect your belief, and wish you well.

 

[swariffin]

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:

Yes, the covenant of God is very true to all human. Jesus always wanted human to go back to the original plan of God. Your past Jewish leaders added that covenant to thousands of their own writings in Mizna and Talbut. BTW, do the doctors and nurses in your hospital cannot help the patients to observe Sabath?

 

[swariffin]

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:

Jewish life, Jewish laws, Jewish observance => Anything against them are not true according to the Jewish.

Arabic life, Quran, Muslim’s observance => Anything against them are not true according to the Muslim.

There is no wonder you are posting that, Ben.

As i said before, Jewish believing in Jesus no longer means Judaism. A Jewish Christian to be exact.

 

[swariffin]

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.
Ben:

And your source is??

 

[swariffin]

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:

The gospel told them as early as 17 years after that, while those who had seen the action were still alive.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Jewish life, Jewish laws, Jewish observance => Anything against them are not true according to the Jewish.

Arabic life, Quran, Muslim’s observance => Anything against them are not true according to the Muslim.

There is no wonder you are posting that, Ben.

As i said before, Jewish believing in Jesus no longer means Judaism. A Jewish Christian to be exact.

And I agree with you 101 percent.

Ben:

 

[Darryl1958]

Hi

The Catholics are more than welcome to fall on Word of God; yes OK, but NTBible is a Word of Paul only.

I will defend Jesus my beloved Messenger against strange teachings of Paul.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

Even most scholars would disagree.

 

[swariffin]

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:

Do you believe it was OK to have people still hang on the cross during the passover of yours?

The Non-Christian Jewish would believe that Zechariah does not refer to the piercing of the crucified to be exact. I can understand that because you are a non-christian Jewish.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The gospel told

them as early as 17 years after that, while those who had seen the action were still alive.

Swariffin, I have the dates for the writing of the gospels in the Saint Joseph Catholic edition of the New American Bible sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. If you don’t believe what I am saying, find that edition in the Library and check it out. Mark came out in 70 soon after the destruction of the Temple, Luke in 75, Matthew in 85 and John between 95 and 100 CE.
Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Do you believe it was OK to have people still hang on the cross during the passover of yours?

No, Swariffin, the crucified could not remain on the crosses during the hours of the Sabbath and festivals. So, Passover included.

The Non-Christian Jewishwould believe that Zechariah does not refer to the piercing of the crucified to be exact. I can understand that because you are a non-christian Jewish.

Good observation! You have just found an evidence that the gospel writers were not Jewish.

Ben:

 

[adrift]

adrift;4846088:

A Review:

It was not. The gospel writer made it a Roman practice in order to plagiarize Zechariah 12:10 and make of it a prophecy in the case of Jesus. If it were a Roman practice, they
used it with all the other crucified. So, Zechariah has to be applied to all the others too. Are you ready for that?

Ben you have no credentials as an expert in this field. You have tried and failed (by appealing to the writing of Jospeh which did not support you.) to produce evidence that you know what Romans did and didn’t do. Plagiarize? It doesn’t fit the definition of plagiarize. No John did not plagiarize. It was the fulfillment of prophecy.

Crucifixion

Crucifixion (or impalement), in one form or another, was used by Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Romans. Death was often hastened. "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."[24]
As I have stated, they used it when the body was going to be taken by family to make sure of death. Don’t you feel just a little silly about your next sentence it is hardly thought out. I won’t embarrass you with further comment. Your arguments are getting more desperate.

Matthew says that the Jewish Elders gave the soldiers who were at the tomb area, a large amount of money so that they would spread around that Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen Jesus’ body out of the tomb. (Mat. 28:12-15) Do you believe this? I bet you do. But you are not ready to believe that Joseph of Arimathea paid generously the Centurion to let him take Jesus’ off the cross without any further ado. Now, think it through.

So you admit the guards were bribed to tell a story rather than admit that Jesus resurrected. I am giggling over this.
There was a difference between the common soldier and the Centurion. You need to offer up more proof than your speculation.

I don’t think so. Money, depending on the size of it, blinds one’s eyes even in spite of death. How do you see a Bank robber who endangers his life for the thine chance to get away with both: Life and money?

I don’t think a bank robber believes he is facing death. I am afraid your going to have to keep reaching.

Yes, I am. No, the Centurion would not be believed. That’s why to leave Israel was in the agenda, as Luke says that Jesus did leave after 40 days. The Jewish mind is famous for being able to think.

So for 40 days The Centurions lie was exposed and nothing happened to him.

No, I am not assuming. It’s the patch of faith that you have not removed from your eyes. When did the Centurion and his cohot confessed their belief that Jesus was indeed the son of God? When Jesus gave up his spirit. (Mat. 27:50, 54)
When did the so-called spear-piercing take place? Some time after Jesus delivered over his spirit. (John 19:30,34)

Ben:

It took place before the earthquake. It was only after the earthquake and all that ensued did he realize that something spectacular happened. Jesus just dying wouldn’t have that effect. He saw others die.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And your source is??

Your own NT itself for the precedence given in Matthew 28:11-15. If you believe that the priests paid a large amount of money to the Roman soldiers to spread around that Jesus’ disciples had come by night and stolen the body while they were sleeping, there is no reason not to believe that Joseph of Arimathea paid even larger amount of money to the Centurion not to allow any more harm to be caused to Jesus.

Ben:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No Piercing At Jesus’ Side

Here are three reasons why Jesus was never pierced at his side on the cross:

1- The custom to rush the death of all the Jews crucified by the Romans was Jewish and not Roman; and the practice was done only on Fridays, so that the bodies would not be left hanging during the hours of the Sabbath. And the method was leg-breaking and not spear-piercing. The Romans wouldn’t care less if the Jewish Sabbath got desecrated by the bodies on the crosses.

Gabriel of 12

Who are you kidding Ben? True the Roman soldiers could care less about the Jewish Sabbath not to mention the Jews themselves. The Leg breaking event did occurr as evidenced in the Gospels, the piercing of Jesus side was not a test of Jesus death, but to mock the death of Jesus who had already expired, so the leg breaking to the Lamb of God was not done, thus fuliflling the Hebrew prophecy of the Messiah of not a bone of his will be broken. Again the piercing was providential, by the mocking of the death of Jesus.

Ben
2 - There is a tradition that the Centurion was richly bribed by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a very rich man in Israel, to just let him - Joseph - take Jesus off the cross and report back to Pilate that Jesus was indeed already dead.

Gabriel of 12

Tradition is not called for here, for the fact it is recorded in the Gospels that Joseph went to Pontius Pilate (not the centurion) for the body of Jesus, please keep your ducks in a row if you are discussing fact or recorded historical accounts and do not read into the text or history from your personal interpretations. The reporting was done by the Romans, not Jews to the Romans about excercising their crucifixions or capital punishments, for one the Romans took the laws of capital punishment from the Jews. Only the Romans were authorized to excercise captial punishment never the Jews under Ceasars rule.

Ben
3 - That Centurion and his men could never by their own accord pierce Jesus after their recognition that Jesus was indeed the son of God. This is for lack of any other option, a confession that they had converted themselves to the Cause of Jesus. That’s in Matthew 27:54. Besides, there was no such a Roman custome to spear-pierce a crucified to check if he was dead.

Gabriel of 12

Just as you express your prejudices views of Jesus and the Gospels only solidifies the action of the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus and speared him because of their prejudiced held views toward Jews. These Roman soldiers did not convert until; after they witnessed the death of Jesus, the earth quake and the ripping in two of the curtain in the Holy place upon the piercing of Jesus body. They did not convert before the crucifixion it was after the death of Jesus.

Ben
The first and third reasons dispense with any other evidence that the piercing of Jesus’ side by a Roman spear was an interpolation by either the writer of the Gospel 50+ years after Jesus had been gone or by the Fathers of the Church in 327 CE, when they selected the books into the Canon of the NT.

Ben:

Gabriel of 12

Here’s a question Ben, before you run off to far with your personal interpretations of history. Were you there to eyewitness the accounts of Jesus to authenticate your bias view? If you were not there, then leave up to the witnesses who were there and recorded these oral teachings after the “Way” or Catholic church grew in communities where these oral teachings were put to letter.

Tell me when you buy a newspaper, are reading the events as they happen or are reading an historical account in your today’s newspaper of what happened yesterday?

Recall, the canon was established for Catholic Liturgical purposes, not to rewrite what was already believed and taught for centuries.

 

[Ben_Masada]

adrift;4846088:

A Review:

Ben you have no credentials as an expert in this field. You have tried and failed (by appealing to the writing of Jospeh which did not support you.) to produce evidence that you know what Romans did and didn’t do. Plagiarize? It doesn’t fit the definition of plagiarize. No John did not plagiarize. It was the fulfillment of prophecy.

Think of a Jew aware of Roman History defending
a Jewish issue and a Gentile who is only desperately trying to hold his non-Jewish religion from not cracking. I think that’s not too hard to see where the credentials are.

I won’t embarrass you with further comment. Your arguments are getting more desperate.

If there is a desperate here, it has to be you. When Christianity started, Judaism existed for thousands of years.

So you admit the guards were bribed to tell a story rather than admit that Jesus resurrected. I am giggling over this.
There was a difference between the common soldier and the Centurion. You need to offer up more proof than your speculation.

No, I am working on your beliefs. Jews are more intelligent than to believe such a slander. First because when the
guards were set at the tomb area, Jesus was no longer in there. No wonder when Mary Magdalene soon after sunset of that Sabbath went to see the sepulcher, the stone was removed and the tomb was empty. Second, what night did the guards spend watching that empty tomb if they were put in there Saturday morning and the tomb was empty at sunset? (Mat. 27:62) Last but not least, who would believe in the story of the guards if they were sleeping? (Mat. 28:13) Sometimes it helps to think. You should try for a change.

So for 40 days The Centurions lie was exposed and nothing happened to him.

During those 40 days Jesus never exposed himself publicly. He would appear to his disciples in secret places. Then, you are assuming that Jesus was a celebrity. Many people even in Israel and even at that time had never seen or heard of such a man. Do you find that impossible?

It took place before the earthquake. It was only after the earthquake and all that ensued did he realize that something spectacular happened. Jesus just dying wouldn’t have that effect. He saw others die.

Listen my friend, you should not put too much into this issue if Jesus was spear-pierced before or after he died
because if he died from that alleged piercing, he died of a stab wound and not from being crucified. Therefore, Christians can no longer claim that Jesus died from crucifixion. So, ponder on these
implications. I don’t think your Catholic authorities will approve this trend.

Ben: