Was Jesus young or old when he died on the Cross?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobby_A.Greene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobby A. Greene:
I believe Jesus’s age was one of several contributing factors leading to his death.
Click to expand...
How would you say Jesus’ age contributed to his death? I believe crucifixion was usually enough to kill even the healthiest person.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
Yes. But all this information would still place Jesus well pass the calculated average life span during the first century of ~25-28 years old.

Again, as a reminder, I have used this observation of Jesus’s age to counter those claims that Jesus survived his crucifixion experience. I believe Jesus’s age was one of several contributing factors leading to his death.
Click to expand...
Just remind them that THEY have the burden of proof-if Crucifixion wasn’t an effective way of killing someone, they wouldn’t have used it. Its much cheaper to flog them then knock off the head, but crucifixion is more painful, and, apparantly, effective enough to be used by the Romans.
 
So, why is it that nowadays men die about eight years younger than women?
 
Look, this as a classic abuse of statistics. Since my last attempt at analogy failed miserably I’ll try this one.

Suppose I set up a new lottery. Payoff is $500. There are only three digits. So each time you play, you have a 1 in 999 chance of winning, right? Now, let us assume that you have already played 700 times and lost every one. What are your odds of winning the next time? By YOUR understanding of the law of averages, the next time you play, you will have a 1 in 299 chance of winning.

Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. Each time you play, you have a 1/999 chance of winning. BEFORE ever play, you can expect about a 50% chance that you’ll win at least once if you play 701 times. But once you have played 700 times and lost, the odds that you’ll win on the 701st time drop back to 0.1%.

In the same way, the average unborn child back then might only have an average life expectancy of 30 years or so. (I’ll leave that to others to decide) But for a man in his 30’s who had already survived the scourges that killed so many kids in those days, those figures are meaningless. You’d need to recompute the odds to be based on how long the average man WHO LIVED TO AT LEAST 33 would THEN expect to live. You have NOT presented such data.

Besides all the statistics lessons, you are arguing your point from a terribly weak position when a much better one is available. If someone is foolish enough to suggest that Jesus survived the cross instead of being resurrected, just ask the claimant to demonstrate how it is, in fact, possible to be nailed on a cross, hang there for hours, have a lance thrust through his side, be placed in a guarded tomb with no access to medical help for at least 30 hours and then RECOVER? That’s loonier than the old age statistics argument!

Sadly, just because someone’s argument is grossly faulty, that does NOT mean you will be able to change his mind. With that said, I’ll be taking my own advice regarding this thread. Cheers!
 
40.png
meep:
How would you say Jesus’ age contributed to his death? I believe crucifixion was usually enough to kill even the healthiest person.
Click to expand...
Yes. But there are actually cases in Roman history where individuals have actually survived their crucifixions. While some have lingered for days and days before expiring.

But my point is directed at those religions, Islam being one, which actually teach that Christ did not die on the cross. One of the reasons given was that he was a healthy young man at 33 and the scourging and other abuse was not as severe as depicted. My simple counter is that 2,000 years ago a 33 year old person was not young, and this relative old age would have been a contributing factor in Christ’s death.
 
Al Masetti:
So, why is it that nowadays men die about eight years younger than women?
Click to expand...
On average, women do not work as hard as men, so a woman’s biological entropy is less.
 
Were those survivors roped or nailed to the cross? Were any of them skewered with a lance to the side before being taken down? Did they have the flesh ripped off their backs via flogging before being crucified?

Try these comeback questions for muslims who bring up such suggestions. The healthiest guy on the planet wouldn’t have lasted any longer.
 
40.png
manualman:
Were those survivors roped or nailed to the cross? Were any of them skewered with a lance to the side before being taken down? Did they have the flesh ripped off their backs via flogging before being crucified?

Try these comeback questions for muslims who bring up such suggestions. The healthiest guy on the planet wouldn’t have lasted any longer.
Click to expand...
Not all crucifixion victims were nailed, crowned, had their legs broken, lanced, or scourged to within an inch of their lives prior to crucifixion. The two thieves crucified next to Christ were tied to their crosses and not scourged. Some victims who were bound to their crosses died of thirst.

Actually I have asked those questions to muslims and they generally avoid a direct answer, deny any other types of crucifixions, have little knowledge of the history of crucifixion, or deny that Christ was beaten as severely as described. Generally muslims deny that Christ was beaten very hard, and the lance just ‘pricked’ the skin and did not penetrate to the lungs or heart.

And as you know, only slaves, foreigners, and criminals were crucifed under Roman law, Roman citizens were not crucified.
 
40.png
manualman:
Look, this as a classic abuse of statistics. Since my last attempt at analogy failed miserably I’ll try this one.

Suppose I set up a new lottery. Payoff is $500. There are only three digits. So each time you play, you have a 1 in 999 chance of winning, right? Now, let us assume that you have already played 700 times and lost every one. What are your odds of winning the next time? By YOUR understanding of the law of averages, the next time you play, you will have a 1 in 299 chance of winning.

Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. Each time you play, you have a 1/999 chance of winning. BEFORE ever play, you can expect about a 50% chance that you’ll win at least once if you play 701 times. But once you have played 700 times and lost, the odds that you’ll win on the 701st time drop back to 0.1%.

In the same way, the average unborn child back then might only have an average life expectancy of 30 years or so. (I’ll leave that to others to decide) But for a man in his 30’s who had already survived the scourges that killed so many kids in those days, those figures are meaningless. You’d need to recompute the odds to be based on how long the average man WHO LIVED TO AT LEAST 33 would THEN expect to live. You have NOT presented such data.

Besides all the statistics lessons, you are arguing your point from a terribly weak position when a much better one is available. If someone is foolish enough to suggest that Jesus survived the cross instead of being resurrected, just ask the claimant to demonstrate how it is, in fact, possible to be nailed on a cross, hang there for hours, have a lance thrust through his side, be placed in a guarded tomb with no access to medical help for at least 30 hours and then RECOVER? That’s loonier than the old age statistics argument!

Sadly, just because someone’s argument is grossly faulty, that does NOT mean you will be able to change his mind. With that said, I’ll be taking my own advice regarding this thread. Cheers!
Click to expand...
I don’t think your example would be applicable to the thousands of Roman skeletons examined by forensic anthropologists who armed with this mass of physical data derived the average life span of a Roman citizen two thousand years ago as being between 25 to 28 years old. I think your example of statistics would be more analogous to the probability studies of either game theory or quantum theory. I think you made a beautiful landing at the wrong airport.
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
Just remind them that THEY have the burden of proof-if Crucifixion wasn’t an effective way of killing someone, they wouldn’t have used it. Its much cheaper to flog them then knock off the head, but crucifixion is more painful, and, apparantly, effective enough to be used by the Romans.
Click to expand...
The Romans did not invent crucifixion, the Romans derived crucifixion from the Greeks. The Greeks derived it from older cultures they either conquered or came into contact.

And actually crucifixion was not an effective way of killing people, it was used as both punishment and as a means of a deterent by displaying the slowing dying victim in public to intimidate any would be enemy of the state.

Roman citizens were not crucified but were either beheaded or other ghastly means provided by the collesiums. There were very effecient ways of execution in Rome other than the slow crucifixion method.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
And actually crucifixion was not an effective way of killing people,
Click to expand...
it was not efficient, but it was effective: they either left a person there until death, or killed the person before taking him down. so a crucifixion victim was certain to die either way, regardless of age.
 
40.png
meep:
it was not efficient, but it was effective: they either left a person there until death, or killed the person before taking him down. so a crucifixion victim was certain to die either way, regardless of age.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t have been that effective since some victims survived their crucifixion experience.

Please read:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html

“The crucifixion of Josephus’ acquaintance who survived should not be projected to the crucifixion of Jesus.”
 
Bobby A. Greene:
Couldn’t have been that effective since some victims survived their crucifixion experience.

Please read:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/crucifixion.html

“The crucifixion of Josephus’ acquaintance who survived should not be projected to the crucifixion of Jesus.”
Click to expand...
Then why is the description of Jehohanan’s crucifiction called “A description of Jehohanan’s death” in the article? Why does the article refer to the breaking of his legs as the “coup de grace”? Are you saying the Romans let him down and revived him, or that he was rescued by friends?

But even if he had somehow survived, my point remains: If the Romans choose to execute you by crucifixion, you aren’t going to walk away unless they let you: they either keep you up there until you’re dead, or they kill you outright. Even if Jesus had been at the height of His youth and had lived a few more hours, how would that have helped Him survive? Would the Romans have tired of it and let Him go? Or would the Apostles have drawn swords and rescued Him? No, if He had been stronger, He just would have been up there longer (and slightly complicated the symbolism of things).

But your article does point out something interesting, when describing the bodies they found: “A woman in her early thirties died in childbirth”
So if the age of thirty back then is equivalent to the age of seventy now (does that fit your theory approximately?), that’s like a woman in this era being pregnant (a prerequisite for dying in childbirth) at the age of seventy. Maybe I suffer from Abraham’s skepticism, but I’d be pretty surprised if we encountered a modern Sarah. 😉
 
Wasn’t it good that the Roman’s crucified Christ in the nick of time, preventing Him from dying of old age ?

Mary, the mother of Jesus must of certainly had at least one foot in the grave at that time.

Trick
 
40.png
meep:
Then why is the description of Jehohanan’s crucifiction called “A description of Jehohanan’s death” in the article?
Click to expand...
Did you read the article?

It also stated: **“The crucifixion of Josephus’s acquaintance who survived should not be projected to the crucifixion of Jesus.” **

To emphasize the point I made that not all people died as a result of crucifixion, there were some survivors. Not all crucifixions included scourging, limb breaking, lancings, nailing, or using a crown of thorns.

A majority of the six thousand slaves of the Spartacus uprising in 78 B.C. were tied to their crosses without being beaten or flogged or lanced.

Some theologians and historians feel that Jesus was held for special treatment with all his abuse.
 
40.png
severinus:
Here is a study on the possibility of Jesus’ surviving crucifixion(long, but worth reading):

brainshavings.com/supplements/crucifixion/
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you. But for those religions who insist and teach that Christ survived his crucifixion experience, I add that his age would have also been a contributing factor to his death. Two thousand years ago a 33 year old man was not young or youthful in any capacity.
 
Well come on guys he was 33. How much long could he go? I mean 33, ahhhhhh!!!
 
Bobby A. Greene:
Did you read the article?
Click to expand...
Yes I did. And I noted that while it seems to speak of his death by crucifixion, it also calls him the “acquaintance who survived”. If they’re saying he survived crucifixion, this survival is certainly not mentioned elsewhere in the article. In the context of the preceding sentences (“In conclusion, we now have empirical evidence of a crucifixion. Death on a cross could be prolonged or swift”) it sounds like they’re saying he survived longer than Christ.

In fact, let me return your question: did you read the article? Here’s a sentence you may have missed: “Dr. Haas is undoubtedly correct, furthermore, in concluding that the iron nail bent approximately 2 cm because it hit a knot necessitating the amputation of the feet to remove the corpse from the cross.”

So if Jehohanan survived crucifixion, why did they remove his corpse from the cross?
 
As I recall a rabbi had to be at least 30 at that time. [Note that that is the age at which Jesus and John start their ministries.] Thus that would seem to be the age of full adulthood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top