Originally posted by donwhite
Look, in the Protestant bible, Jesus was crucified on Friday. He was resurrected on Sunday. That is not 3 days.
The "protestant" bible was written by people that counted days in the ways that dAlen is showing. So the bible is 'correct', its out
interpretation and understanding today that is incorrect. Knowledge was lost, so the context is immpossible to understand.
The jews back then had an entirely different way of counting 'days'. A day ends when the sun sets. If you wake up and its monday, then the sun sets
later that day, its now Tuesday.
This is why, to this day, chasidics and other strict jews don't drive their cars after sundown on certain days. Their 'sabbath' started on Friday,
right at sundown, and ended what we call saturday, right at sundown (or maybe its like an hour afterwards of some such).
Westerners count their days as starting at Midnight. Old hebrews as starting at whenever sunset occurs.
Imagine if there were no more jews, that they had just dissapeared like other religions in the 2k years since. We'd be completely clueless. We'd
think that the tradition was utterly stupid. At least now we can explain it.
Begs the question, what else
is misunderstood? How much don't we understand because we don't understand the yehudi ways, or how much is
incomprehensible because we don't understand the pagan ways?
And I never knew the Romans were so concerned what the conquered peoples thought about them.
They definitly were. Can't control a population if you don't know what will make them frothing at the mouth angry and what will be acceptable to
I believe “gratuity” is from the Latin.
What was Jesus’ offense to death?
Under the yehudis, he was a blasphemer, claiming to be an incarnation of god, challenging the 'true' religious authorities, and stirring up the
people against them. Under the romani, he was a rebel against the state, an agitator. SO in the one, the primary offense was religious, in the other,
secular. Either would get a person killed in those days, its not like there were civil liberties protecting people from teh excesses of the
The whole incident seems to run counter to His non-violent, peace-loving nature.
There is a theory that the historical jesus was a typical zealotes, a wild man of the wilderness who wanted to destroy the current world with fire and
replace it with a heavenly kingdom, with him as king. That he wanted to overthrow the jewish leaders and kick out the roman occupiers, through
raising an army and inspiring that army with radical religious fanaticism. But that, after his inner cadre of followers saw him taken away, without
accomplishing any of that, and saw him brutalized, whipped, flayed, then nailed to a tall wooden plank and hang there until he died, they figured,
hmmmm, mabye we should chill out with all that 'destroy the world stuff'.
In a sense, we can expect that, the roman system was very effective. People today often think that being brutal like that only encourages more
violence, but very few people would have the stomach to even watch such tortuous beatings doled out to a low level radical,let alone to want to follow
but also it was reserved for thief and enemies of the state.
Theives, as far as I understand it, didn't get crucified. Execution is pretty excessive for stealing a chicken. The romans did have another
traditional punishment for parricide: you'd be put into a cloth bag, with a living and wild babbon and snake, and then the whole bundle was thrown
into the Tiber.
Sometimes rebellion against the state could be interpreted as a sort of parricide.
Maybe they were just out of bags and baboons that day!
Man, that'd be a tough necklace to wear!
While stoning was more for (2) prostitutes
I am not aware of this, perhaps you are thinking of yehudi law? The romans didn't have much of a problem with prostitutes. THe only similar thing I
can think of is that a Vestal Virgin, who'd taken a sacral vow of chastity (theologically this was a magic performance that would uphold the sanctity
of the state and preserve the order of the universe), but who then broke it, were buried alive as a punishment.
Interestingly though, this doesn't mean buried in total. ANd if you look at how to 'properly' stone a woman, you bury her half-way, then start
hurling rocks. So maybe there is some sort of bigger basis for the tradition.
Anyway, I don't think that the romans used stoning as a proper state issued punishment. Too impersonal. They'd've prefered whippings and beatings,
the more humiliation the better. They're kinda like a state run by dominatrixes.
A Roman Citizen could only be crucified for an act of treason
Interseting, however I think that its a mistake to think of these things as strictly set out with recommended sentencing minimums and the like, as is
now. The tradition punishment for a traitor was to hammer him to a pole, cross, etc, and leave him there til he was dead. Spartacus wasn't a
citizen, for example, and he was executed by a general, no trial or anything like that.
On the other hand, if it was only being doled out to romans, slave or otherwise, this does bring up another interesting interpretation.
The jews supposedly weren't allowed to execute their own people (though I don't recall seeing a document stating this, locals were usually allowed
to do their own thing). SO what if jesus was taken to pilate because he was considered the son of a roman citizen, likesay as some say Mary was
gotten pregnant by a soldier, before marriage to joseph. If only citizens/romans were crucified, that might also mesh nicely with that story.
For this reason, among others, the story of Jesus’ crucifixion as laid out in the Gospels is suspect
I don't know about that. We'd expect that the anti-christians at the time would've said 'this story is bogus, you just go and try to take a body
off a cross and see what happens to ya'. Everyone would know the rules, if that was a rule. I don't think that the romans would've taken
spartacus and his upstarts off their crosses, but perhaps because the jews would've found such a practice, having a rotting corpse polluting the air
and sky, so incredibly offensive, it might've been ok with the authorities.
The answer to the original thread is that crucifixion was the only form of capital punishment available to the Jews at the time.
??? What are you basing this one? The romans had a litany of execution methods, including strangulation. THey'd tied a person to a chair, that had a
headrest, witha hole in it. They'd thread a leather strap through the hole, around a persons neck, and then back out the hole. Then they'd tie the
ends to a strick, and start twisting it (actually, it might not have required a headrest, just the rope+stick, but the chair was used).
Again, that'd be a difficult thing to make into a necklace.
That is why the Romans were there
The romans were in yehudi-land because it belonged to them, it had been the property of the successors of Alexander the Great, and the romans took
over most of those territories. They permited a local jewish king to run things, as they often did. Easier to let the locals have a leader they are
comfortable with, and then abuse-intimidate-control that leader.
In so far as the people were controllable, the romans didn't really care what they did. The problem with the jews was, the herods didn't have
enough control, and there were allways these roving bands of zealots, theives, marauders, etc, running around. Very similar to arabic banditry in
furhter regions. SO finally they had had enough, got rid of herod and the religous authorities, killed everyone that resisted, moved lots of others
to the "other side of the world", , destroyed the temple, changed the name of hte region and the city of jerusalem, and installed roman offices to
administer the place. In a sense, they tried to wipe out their very identity and culture to keep them from resisting. Sorta worked.
[edit on 16-4-2006 by Nygdan]