Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[We Never Know]

It doesn't say their legs were broken BEFORE they were crucified.

If you want to read into it that their legs were broken as they hung there, that's up to you. It clearly says the legs were broken to hasten death.

"To hasten death, the victim sometimes had his legs broken (crurifragium); the resulting compound fracture of the shin bones may have resulted in hemorrhage and fat embolisms, not to mention significant pain, causing earlier death."

 

[We Never Know]

It doesn't say their legs were broken BEFORE they were crucified.

I also read that a most died from asphyxiation. With the legs broken, one couldn't push up and take the strain of hanging off the torso which aided in asphyxiation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think feeding them to the dogs wss ordinary?

This essay examines the contention that Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus—in light of what one can know from Greco-Roman culture about the disposal of the bodies of crucified individuals. A survey of the statutes governing the burial of criminals and governing the prosecution of those accused of seditious activity indicates that provincial officials had a choice when confronted with the need to dispose of the bodies of the condemned. Greco-Roman texts show that in certain cases the bodies of the crucified were left to decompose in place. In other cases, the crucified bodies were buried.

Crucifixion and Burial* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core

What makes you think feeding them to the dogs wss ordinary?

This essay examines the contention that Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus—in light of what one can know from Greco-Roman culture about the disposal of the bodies of crucified individuals. A survey of the statutes governing the burial of criminals and governing the prosecution of those accused of seditious activity indicates that provincial officials had a choice when confronted with the need to dispose of the bodies of the condemned. Greco-Roman texts show that in certain cases the bodies of the crucified were left to decompose in place. In other cases, the crucified bodies were buried.

Crucifixion and Burial* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core

A source where we can only read the abstract. Not much different from Wikipedia which sites several sources:

"In Roman-style crucifixion, the condemned could take up to a few days to die, but death was sometimes hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could leave the site only 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."[57] The Romans sometimes broke the prisoner's legs to hasten death and usually forbade burial.[92] On the other hand, the person was often deliberately kept alive as long as possible to prolong their suffering and humiliation, so as to provide the maximum deterrent effect.[89] Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals.[89][106]"

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

Here is another source that supports the non-burial of crucifixion victims:

Crucifixion - New World Encyclopedia

"The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honorable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonor."

And another:

"It was usual to leave the body on the cross after death."

Roman Crucifixion

And one more:

"And the proof did not end with your last breath. Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons.

Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world. It was far more important to people then than it is to people today. A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife. It honored the body of the one departed. Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating. And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried. They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack. To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson. No decency allowed. The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave.
And the proof did not end with your last breath. Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons."

Why Romans Crucified People

 

[sooda]

If you want to read into it that their legs were broken as they hung there, that's up to you. It clearly says the legs were broken to hasten death.

"To hasten death, the victim sometimes had his legs broken (crurifragium); the resulting compound fracture of the shin bones may have resulted in hemorrhage and fat embolisms, not to mention significant pain, causing earlier death."

To hasten death....

Like death by guillotine in early modern times, crucifixion was a public act, but unlike the swift action of the guillotine, crucifixion involved a long and painful – literally, excruciating – death. The Roman orator Cicero noted that “of all punishments, it is the most cruel and most terrifying,” and Jewish historian Josephus called it “the most wretched of deaths.”

So crucifixion was both a deterrent of further crimes and a humiliation of the dying person, who had to spend the last days of his life naked, in full view of any passersby, until he died of dehydration, asphyxiation, infection, or other causes.

 

[We Never Know]

To hasten death....

Like death by guillotine in early modern times, crucifixion was a public act, but unlike the swift action of the guillotine, crucifixion involved a long and painful – literally, excruciating – death. The Roman orator Cicero noted that “of all punishments, it is the most cruel and most terrifying,” and Jewish historian Josephus called it “the most wretched of deaths.”

So crucifixion was both a deterrent of further crimes and a humiliation of the dying person, who had to spend the last days of his life naked, in full view of any passersby, until he died of dehydration, asphyxiation, infection, or other causes.

Hasten: to cause something to happen sooner, more quickly.

 

[We Never Know]

A source where we can only read the abstract. Not much different from Wikipedia which sites several sources:

"In Roman-style crucifixion, the condemned could take up to a few days to die, but death was sometimes hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could leave the site only 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."[57] The Romans sometimes broke the prisoner's legs to hasten death and usually forbade burial.[92] On the other hand, the person was often deliberately kept alive as long as possible to prolong their suffering and humiliation, so as to provide the maximum deterrent effect.[89] Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals.[89][106]"

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

Here is another source that supports the non-burial of crucifixion victims:

Crucifixion - New World Encyclopedia

"The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honorable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonor."

And another:

"It was usual to leave the body on the cross after death."

Roman Crucifixion

And one more:

"And the proof did not end with your last breath. Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons.

Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world. It was far more important to people then than it is to people today. A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife. It honored the body of the one departed. Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating. And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried. They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack. To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson. No decency allowed. The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave.
And the proof did not end with your last breath. Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons."

Why Romans Crucified People

I read those too. I liked the one I posted better. It was more in depth. Wiki and the encyclopedia aren't creditable in my opinion.

By the way, which one supports the claim it was "ordinary" that they were fed to the dogs?

Oh and you can read much more with an account.

 

[sooda]

A source where we can only read the abstract. Not much different from Wikipedia which sites several sources:

"In Roman-style crucifixion, the condemned could take up to a few days to die, but death was sometimes hastened by human action. "The attending Roman guards could leave the site only 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."[57] The Romans sometimes broke the prisoner's legs to hasten death and usually forbade burial.[92] On the other hand, the person was often deliberately kept alive as long as possible to prolong their suffering and humiliation, so as to provide the maximum deterrent effect.[89] Corpses of the crucified were typically left on the crosses to decompose and be eaten by animals.[89][106]"

Crucifixion - Wikipedia

Here is another source that supports the non-burial of crucifixion victims:

Crucifixion - New World Encyclopedia

"The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honorable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonor."

And another:

"It was usual to leave the body on the cross after death."

Roman Crucifixion

And one more:

"And the proof did not end with your last breath. Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons.

Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world. It was far more important to people then than it is to people today. A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife. It honored the body of the one departed. Not to receive a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, humiliating. And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried. They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack. To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson. No decency allowed. The body has to rot, and then we’ll toss it into a grave.
And the proof did not end with your last breath. Romans left bodies on the cross for clear and distinct reasons."

Why Romans Crucified People

That's quite a link..

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/

 

[sooda]

I read those too. I liked the one I posted better. It was more in depth. Wiki and the encyclopedia aren't creditable in my opinion.

By the way, which one supports the claim they were fed to the dogs?

Usually dead criminals were thrown on the city dump.. Gehenna..

 

[sojourner]

Crossan's view is one opinion that skeptical scholars have about what happened after Jesus' crucifixion, but there are other views. The scholar Géza Vermès, a skeptic of Jesus’ resurrection, wrote, "[W]hen every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that … the women … found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb."

We could argue which position is right if you want. However, since virtually all scholars agree 1) that Jesus was crucified and 2) "that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" (Gerd Lüdemann [Germany's leading resurrection skeptic], What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80, quoted online here), will you grant these?

No, all I’m saying is that we can’t know for sure whether he was resurrected or not, based on highly mythic biblical accounts. Jesus’ birth and resurrection CLOSELY parallel those of Augustus. It is postulated that the Jesus story is lifted from that of Augustus (especially given that the oldest extant artwork of Jesus is a blatant ripoff of a depiction of Augustus).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read those too. I liked the one I posted better. It was more in depth. Wiki and the encyclopedia aren't creditable in my opinion.

By the way, which one supports the claim it was "ordinary" that they were fed to the dogs?

Oh and you can read much more with an account.

The "fed to the dogs" was a bit of hyperbole since the common way to treat them was a mass grave, as you can see from several sources. And how do you know that your source was any more credible or more in depth? Did you pay to read the article? All that one could see form your link was an abstract.

 

[We Never Know]

The "fed to the dogs" was a bit of hyperbole since the common way to treat them was a mass grave, as you can see from several sources. And how do you know that your source was any more credible or more in depth? Did you pay to read the article? All that one could see form your link was an abstract.

Oh so now you are down to hyperbole instead of ordinary. Now we are getting somewhere.

 

[We Never Know]

I'd like to read that... Do you have a source?

Dead bodies of criminals in Jerusalem were tossed into Gehenna Valley to be destroyed.

Here's the quote that says the legs were broken with iron clubs(I said iron pipes, my error). It's from wiki which I don't put much stock into.

Frequently, the legs of the person executed were broken or shattered with an iron club, an act called crurifragium, which was also frequently applied without crucifixion to slaves.[25] This act hastened the death of the person but was also meant to deter those who observed the crucifixion from committing offenses.[25]

I believe it's from the same wiki link in subduction zones post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh so now you are down to hyperbole instead of ordinary. Now we are getting somewhere.

That you do not understand hyperbole when it is given is not my problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the quote that says the legs were broken with iron clubs(I said iron pipes, my error). It's from wiki which I don't put much stock into.

Frequently, the legs of the person executed were broken or shattered with an iron club, an act called crurifragium, which was also frequently applied without crucifixion to slaves.[25] This act hastened the death of the person but was also meant to deter those who observed the crucifixion from committing offenses.[25]

I believe it's from the same wiki link in subduction zones post.

Even after you demonstrated why Wiki is reliable?

 

[sooda]

That you do not understand hyperbole when it is given is not my problem.

Gehenna or the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom was a literal place outside the city. It served as a garbage dump for the city and a disposal for bodies of individuals considered unworthy for proper burial.

These would include criminals of various sorts. Fire was kept going in Gehenna to incinerate the trash and bodies thrown there.

Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the ...
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56381/where-were-the-two-thieves-that-were-crucified-at-th…

 

[We Never Know]

That you do not understand hyperbole when it is given is not my problem.

Uhm no. You claimed feeding them to the dogs was "ordinary" and if someone disagreed with what was "ordinary", the burden of proof was upon them.

Now it turns out it is hyperbole so doesn't that put the burden of proof upon you?

 

[We Never Know]

Even after you demonstrated why Wiki is reliable?

Which is why I included I don't put much stock in wiki. The poster wanted to know where I saw about iron pipes/clubs so I shown them.

It may have been else where but that was there in one of your links so I used it.

 

[sooda]

Uhm no. You claimed feeding them to the dogs was "ordinary" and if someone disagreed with what was "ordinary", the burden of proof was upon them.

Now it turns out it is hyperbole so doesn't that put the burden of proof upon you?

Think... The bodies of dead criminals were thrown on the city dump.

 

[We Never Know]

Think... The bodies of dead criminals were thrown on the city dump.

They probably did many different things with them in those days. From what I've read it depended on what the person was guilty of. Leaving them hanging on the cross and letting scavenger birds pick at them seemed quite popular.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not according to Mark...