statement regarding crucifixion

[pleasantseeker]

statement- pontius pilate felt compassion for christ so instead of having him suffer for days on the cross, he had his soldiers whip him excessively to hasten his demise. or his soldiers felt the same way and did it without express orders. crucifixion was a long and terrible death, for anyone to die within 6 hours was unusual.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We can only conjecture as to why things happened the way they did. My opinion is that he did not want to crucify him and was hoping that the scourging would appease the crowd. It didn't and so he justified his actions throughout the whole episode, much as any of us do when we are not proud of what we have done.

BTW, welcome to the forums. I hope you have a pleasant stay!

 

[Anastasios]

You will find a long thread which I wrote relating to it, that is the point of Ahmedi Muslims for Jesus's Curcifixion.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24572&page=4&pp=10

 

[jeffrey]

Also keep in mind that he was nailed to the cross, most likely through the wrists, not hands and was not tied to the cross. If a major artery was hit, loss of blood would have killed him easily in that time frame.

 

[Fluffy]

Also keep in mind that he was nailed to the cross, most likely through the wrists, not hands and was not tied to the cross. If a major artery was hit, loss of blood would have killed him easily in that time frame.

I don't know about that. The nail would probably have stemmed most of the blood flow from the pressure it exerted and the blood would scab over before Jesus could have died. It is quite common for people who have slashed their wrists to pass out and wake up later to find their cuts have scabbed which is why the suicide in the bath tub is beginning to be more common.

 

[jeffrey]

Fluffy, you might be right. But with 4 holes in you and a spear wound in your side....... Add that to a weakened condition. It could have played a factor.

 

[pleasantseeker]

They excessively scorged him in order for his crucifixion to be short. the thought that he lived and went elsewhere is absurd. my point is that there is an element of humanity that is totally lost in the story of the passion. all emphasis is on his sufferings. the events of his death have been subjugated for the sake of theology. the old testament interpretation of his death would have naturally appealed to Paul and we have been going backwards ever since. christ died for his message not for our sins. his message was and is completely revolutionary to our conception of existence. he realized that each man must not only act from a pure heart but think with a pure heart. such a message with all of its implications completely challenges the notions of ownership and accumulation, which in turn upturns those who think with a heart that knows the answers.

 

[michel]

They excessively scorged him in order for his crucifixion to be short. the thought that he lived and went elsewhere is absurd. my point is that there is an element of humanity that is totally lost in the story of the passion. all emphasis is on his sufferings. the events of his death have been subjugated for the sake of theology. the old testament interpretation of his death would have naturally appealed to Paul and we have been going backwards ever since. christ died for his message not for our sins. his message was and is completely revolutionary to our conception of existence. he realized that each man must not only act from a pure heart but think with a pure heart. such a message with all of its implications completely challenges the notions of ownership and accumulation, which in turn upturns those who think with a heart that knows the answers.

pleasantseeker

Welcome to the Forum !

As I notice that this is your first visit here, perhaps you would like to introduce yourself to the other members, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to see.

I 'm not exactly sure I agree with you about the crucifiction, but I guess That's what this forum is about..............

 

[Popeyesays]

Pontius Pilate was not concerned one way or the other for Christ's suffering. Crucifixion was supposed to be painful, lengthy and demeaning.

To hasted the death along it was customary to break the legs of the victim after a few hours on the cross. This prevented the victim from supporting his weight on the cross with his legs and thereby hastened asphyxiation.

Christ died quickly, much quicker than most, before they got around to breaking the legs of the victims on the cross. They jabbed him with a spear much like a doctor will jab an individual with a pin to see if there is deep pain response or arterial bleeding.

What is unusual is that He was taken down promptly. Usually they would leave the bodies hang for awhile. When the rebels of the Spartacus rebellion were crucified (several thousand strung out on both sides of the road from the site of the battle toward Rome, the bodies hung for more than ten days as a warning to others.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sandy whitelinger]

To hasted the death along it was customary to break the legs of the victim after a few hours on the cross. ...What is unusual is that He was taken down promptly.

The hastening of death and the removal of bodies so quicky had to do with the coming passover as did the speedy trial of Christ by the Jews. There could be no putting to death during the passover neither could there be the handling of dead bodies according to Jewish law (they would be unclean and unable to participate in the rite).

While the Romans were not bound by Jewish law, appeasing them was one of the primary funcions of the governor of Judea (the fewer problems the better for the Roman Ruler as the Jews were an unruly bunch).

While Pilate probably had no regard for an individual life or the sufferings thereof, he more than likely had a sense of justice under Roman law that would not want to see an injustice done. This was most likely the reason for any compassion shown to Christ (as well as the dreams of his wife, Matt. 27:19).

Pilate had to balance this sense of justice against unrest in Judea (the mob of Jews calling for crucifiction was getting out of hand, spurred on by the pharases). His position as governer depended on keeping his territory civil.

 

[mormonman]

They excessively scorged him in order for his crucifixion to be short. the thought that he lived and went elsewhere is absurd. my point is that there is an element of humanity that is totally lost in the story of the passion. all emphasis is on his sufferings. the events of his death have been subjugated for the sake of theology. the old testament interpretation of his death would have naturally appealed to Paul and we have been going backwards ever since. christ died for his message not for our sins. his message was and is completely revolutionary to our conception of existence. he realized that each man must not only act from a pure heart but think with a pure heart. such a message with all of its implications completely challenges the notions of ownership and accumulation, which in turn upturns those who think with a heart that knows the answers.

While Christ's suffering on the cross was terrible, it wasn't the worse he had to endure. Christ took upon himself the sins of the world on the cross, but also in the Garden of Gethsemane. This is where he suffered for everyone of our sins, and bled from every single one of his pores. Don't give me that "he died for a message" crap, he died so we could live w/ our Heavenly Father again.

 

[Anastasios]

Jesus didn't die on the Cross. It is very obvious, the consept of "resurrection" and that Paul saw him in Damascus are just a few of very clear evidences ("as a vision" is the fictional part of it).

There are irrefutable arguments from bible about that Jesus cannot or didn't die on the Cross. Actually there are also diferent many sources related to Jesus's survival, anyway.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24572&page=4&pp=10

 

[mormonman]

Jesus didn't die on the Cross. It is very obvious, the consept of "resurrection" and that Paul saw him in Damascus are just a few of very clear evidences ("as a vision" is the fictional part of it).

There are irrefutable arguments from bible about that Jesus cannot or didn't die on the Cross. Actually there are also diferent many sources related to Jesus's survival, anyway.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24572&page=4&pp=10

This doesn't make sense. You say "there are irrefutable arguments from the bible that Jesus cannot or didn't die on the Cross". :bonk: WHAT!!! The last time I read the Bible, it said that Jesus died on the Cross. After 3 days in the tomb he was ressurected. This means that the body and spirit come back together in a perfected state. After he was resurrected he showed himself to the apostles and selected others. We also believe he showed himself and established churches in the America's.