Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Q. How do you make 3 out of 2?

R/F, your explanation would do Jesuits proud! Which still does not make 2 equal 3.

Except for the initiate. Who in reality don’t care a whit. Their mantra is Jesus was crucified on Friday, and rose from the dead on Sunday, thus fulfilling the prophecy he would be 3 days in the grave. Wow! For Trinitarians that is no big leap?

I assume the writers of the Gospels knew of the Hebrew system of counting the passage of time. Well, at least the writer of Matthew. Maybe Luke. Maybe not Mark. John was written by a committee around 105-120 AD.

But, plainly, you can see how hard it is to explain in 2006 and we have Cray computers to help us! No wonder this is called a “Mystery.”


[edit on 4/17/2006 by donwhite]




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The Pharisees didn't like Jesus because He threatened their power, in a nutshell. They had some influence in the Roman government if I remember right. Basically they were on a power trip.

Why crucifixion and not stoning? For one thing His blood had to be shed (though granted I'm sure He would have bled were He stoned). Then you have to take the Old Testament prophecies into account--not a bone would be broken, had to be lifted up, etc.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
If you look at Matthew 12:40, Jesus Himself said He would be in the heart of the earth THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. Friday to Sunday doesn't cut it there.

What most people don't realize was that there was a high holy day that week--so in addition to the weekly Saturday sabbath, there was the high holy day sabbath. The day after Passover was the First Day Unleavened Bread, which was a high holy day--no work. See Leviticus 16.

Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday. Because the next day was a high holy day, the people being crucified had to hurry up and die, which was why the soldier broke the legs of the two thieves on the tree with Him--to speed up their deaths. Wednesday was the preparation day for the sabbath the next day--people confuse that with Friday. (Note--there were not three crosses. There were three men--Jesus and the two thieves--on the same tree, each being held there by his own crossbar. Why would the soldiers go to the thief on the left, then the one on the right of Jesus, and skip over Him? That's what would have happened were He between them.)

Jesus died around 3 pm on a Wednesday and was buried. Three days and three nights brings us to Saturday, probably a little after 3 pm. Remember Saturday was the Sabbath so no one went to the tomb, which was found empty BEFORE SUNRISE on Sunday. See, it was FOUND empty on Sunday!

So it was Wednesday to Saturday, not Friday to Sunday.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ametyst is correct in the crucifixion being on Wednesday and the resurrection being just after dark on Saturday night. Wednesday (Nisan 14) is Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread started just after dark Wednesday night (Nisan 15). Christ was resurrected just after dark Saturday evening which is when the feast of Firstfruits begins.

The picture is that Christ died at the same time the Jews were killing their own Passover lambs. Notice the area around the cross was empty of crowds when He died. The key thing about being in the grave before the start of Unleavened Bread is that that particular feast taught about incorruption. If a body was to be raised back to life the normal after death processes could not be allowed to take place. This includes the preparation for burial by human hands.

Firstfruits begins as soon as the regular Saturday Sabbath is over. On this one day of the year the people would go into the fields with torches where the priests would harvest a symbolic portion of the crops and present them at the Temple as an offering. Only after this was done could the people eat from the new produce. Christ was harvested from the grave at this time as the symbolic portion of the future resurrection of man.

Being raised on Firstfruits is significant because it is a floating holiday like our Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is always on a Thursday regardless of what the date is. Firstfruits always falls on the first Sunday after Passover, regardless of how many days have passed. So God had the more difficult task of not only meeting a certain day of the year, but a specific year in which Passover and Firstfruits were three days apart.

One peculiarity of the Hebrew calendar is that the months always start on a new moon. This means that the 14-15 day of the month will always be a full moon and these are easily traceable through astronomy. Passover is also the Vernal Equinox so a quick check at the USNO or a astronomical chart book shows that the only possibility for either a Friday or Wednesday crucifixion (+/- 5 years of the expected date) is April 3rd, 33A.D. If you take the extra leap days out of the Julian calendar the astronomers use you will find that this is a Wednesday.

This is hopelessly oversimplified. You can see the details and references at
www.freedomfightersministry.org...
(13 pages long)

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Riddle]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   

posted by Amethyst: “If you look at Matthew 12:40, Jesus said He would be in the heart of the earth 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS. Friday to Sunday doesn't cut it there.


My point exactly, Amethyst.


What most people don't realize was that there was a high holy day that week - so in addition to the weekly Saturday Sabbath, there was the high holy day Sabbath.


Are you saying there were TWO Sabbaths that week? I can’t recall hearing this argument. Why has that [2 Sabbaths] not been mentioned before?


The day after Passover was the First Day Unleavened Bread, which was a high holy day - no work. Leviticus 16. Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday.


An earlier poster had Jesus being crucified on Thursday, but now Amethyst, you are moving it up yet another day, to Wednesday! Wow!


Because the next day was a high holy day, the people being crucified had to hurry up and die, which was why the soldier broke the legs of the two thieves on the tree with Him - to speed up their deaths.


Amethyst, again, despite opinions to the contrary posted here, I cannot (easily) accept the proposition the Romans were in any way desultory to the customs of the Jewish people. Next you’ll be telling me before assignment to Judea, the Roman soldiers were circumcised.


Why would the soldiers go to the thief on the left, then the one on the right of Jesus, and skip over Him? That's what would have happened were He between them.


Sorry, but I don’t believe this story. The Romans did not crucify thieves. They assigned them to the galleys as oarsmen. To perform useful labor. Rebels were crucified. But not do-gooders. This is why I don't believe the story. I'm not saying Jesus was not crucified. I'm saying it was not for the reason stated. And, I don't subscribe to the resurrection part, either. I offer that Ditamus - Hebrew for twin - was Jesus' twin brother. People just mistook Ditamus for Jesus after the crucifixion. The Origin of Christianity!


Jesus died around 3 pm on a Wednesday and was buried. Three days and three nights brings us to Saturday, probably a little after 3 pm. Remember Saturday was the Sabbath so no one went to the tomb, which was found empty BEFORE SUNRISE on Sunday. See, it was FOUND empty on Sunday! So it was Wednesday to Saturday, not Friday to Sunday. [Edited by Don W]


At least one of the Gospel accounts has the visitors to the tomb coming during the light of day. So are we just ignoring that Gospel? Disregarding it because it does not fit the plan? Cut and paste? What’s up here, Amethyst.

[edit on 4/17/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
These may have been covered in other posts
1. three days,
in 1st century Judea any part of a day was counted as a day, so 1hour on Friday before twilight was 1 day. (the day started when 3 stars were visible in the twilight sky) Saturday (from twilight Friday to twilight Saturday) (day 2) Sunday from twilight Saturday to the resurrection (day 3)
2 Jewish officials were not allowed to invoke capital punishment (especially on a famous popular man like Jesus) the Romans didn't kill Jesus for a crime they did it out of apathy and appeasement (pilot seamed to regret the execution but didn't want a riot I suspect this is why the body was taken down and not left for the crows)
3 the executioners wouldn't be fooled by Jesus passing out (the water and blood indicates a ruptured heart and the blood separating into serum and blood cells)
4 the guards would have been executed by being burned alive if they let anyone steal the body



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by magnito_student
The Book Talks about how much of our belief systems are hand me downs from generations past and that there is a possibility you are God and God is you. When I say this, I speak of that divine part of you that knows, the part of you that which God created. That there really is no good or evil, just experience that brings you even closer to the creator regardless of what our limited labels we place on things such as "Its good, its bad, etc. That we all operate from either 2 positions One is Love and the other is Fear.


So you're saying that rape is a good thing?
Can you love rape?
Does fearing rape cause or prevent it?

No, rape is the will of evil people.
Evil DOES exist.

The Love or Fear thing is bull, ever seen Donnie Darko?

There are so many more emotions than love and fear, how can you generalize everything into one of those categories?


Also Christianity teaches to have no fear because God is with you.


"Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go."
Joshua 1:9


See that? That's called supporting evidence.


[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

posted by Amethyst: “If you look at Matthew 12:40, Jesus said He would be in the heart of the earth 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS. Friday to Sunday doesn't cut it there.


Not so fast, if what Amethyst said is correct it makes sense,

Wednesday - crucifixion

Thursday-AM Day 1
Thursday-PM Day 1

Friday-AM Day 2
Friday-PM Day 2

Saturday-AM Day 3
Saturday-PM Day 3

Sunday-AM Day 4

However as dAlen pointed out, the jewish day runs from sundown to sundown

Effectively 6pm-6pm is 1 day

So Saturday PM would be sometime around 6am Sunday morning, right around the time Jesus suposedly greeted mary in the garden.


[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
this idea:
" 3 the executioners wouldn't be fooled by Jesus passing out (the water and blood indicates a ruptured heart and the blood separating into serum and blood cells)"

is basically a medical miracle - most any forensic pathologist will tell you that there's no way this could happen in such a short time if it happened at all.

the other theory about the fluid in the cardiac sac is also completely bogus as the amount of fluid there is only a few ounces or less

of course, none of this "blood and water flowing" matches up with the most likely scenario - Roman soldiers standing guard over crucifixions would give a slight poke with a stick or a spear just to see if there was a reaction. Too many folks who don't bother much with history misinterpret this little nudge with some kind of full on killing thrust to ensure death. Even without history, that makes no sense whatsoever since it runs counter to the whole idea of using crucifixon in the first place! You don't go to all the trouble and expense of a crucifixion and then do something to ensure a quick death (nor do you take down the body immediately for burial since that defeats the purpose of making the punishment a deterrent for the rest of the citizenry).

Whether this event acutally happned at all is still open to debate but, there is almost no chance at all that it happened the way it is portrayed in the Gospels.

Side note: some folks keep referring to Josephus as though he would be the final arbitor of the historical veracity of Jesus. I'm pretty sure that none of those folks have ever read Josephus nor the hundreds of commentaries on the life and works of the man. Not to even mention the suspicions surrounding the so-called "survival" of his writings in light of the fact that virtually every one of the works of his contemporaries and precendents were systematically destroyed by agents of both Christianity and barbarians. Are we so "lucky" that Josephus' works were "miraculously saved". Hmmm....



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
this idea:
" 3 the executioners wouldn't be fooled by Jesus passing out (the water and blood indicates a ruptured heart and the blood separating into serum and blood cells)"

is basically a medical miracle - most any forensic pathologist will tell you that there's no way this could happen in such a short time if it happened at all.

the other theory about the fluid in the cardiac sac is also completely bogus as the amount of fluid there is only a few ounces or less

of course, none of this "blood and water flowing" matches up with the most likely scenario - Roman soldiers standing guard over crucifixions would give a slight poke with a stick or a spear just to see if there was a reaction. Too many folks who don't bother much with history misinterpret this little nudge with some kind of full on killing thrust to ensure death. Even without history, that makes no sense whatsoever since it runs counter to the whole idea of using crucifixon in the first place! You don't go to all the trouble and expense of a crucifixion and then do something to ensure a quick death (nor do you take down the body immediately for burial since that defeats the purpose of making the punishment a deterrent for the rest of the citizenry).

Whether this event acutally happned at all is still open to debate but, there is almost no chance at all that it happened the way it is portrayed in the Gospels.


It seems entirely possible he could have ruptured something internally either via the in intenst beatings he recieved or via the emmense stress he was under.
Possibly even a broken rib could have punctured an internal organ when he fell from under his cross while carrying it up the hill.
Somewhat of an assumption, but the romans did pull a man from the crowd to help him carry the cross.

Also they didn't impale him with sword to kill him, they did it to prove he was dead so they could take him down and get it overwith.
They would not leave him up there because the Romans only killed him to appease the Jews and leaving him there would have encited riots.



[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
MrJones:
Please list the organs that contain clearish fluid and the amounts - I think you'll find very few, if any, and the amounts will be less than a few ounces. Don't take my word for it, though.

On the second point, you're actually arguing the same as I am but apparently without the history - yes, the pokes and prods were to check to see if the victim was still alive but you don't check for signs of life with a killing thrust. Think about it. How likely is it that I would stab you through the heart to see if you were really dead?



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
MrJones:
Please list the organs that contain clearish fluid and the amounts - I think you'll find very few, if any, and the amounts will be less than a few ounces. Don't take my word for it, though.

On the second point, you're actually arguing the same as I am but apparently without the history - yes, the pokes and prods were to check to see if the victim was still alive but you don't check for signs of life with a killing thrust. Think about it. How likely is it that I would stab you through the heart to see if you were really dead?


It may not seem like much sense now to you or I, but...

Since no one was intended to survive crucifixions the body was not released to the family until the soldiers were sure that the victim was dead. By custom, one of the Roman guards would pierce the body with a sword or lance.

www.frugalsites.net...

They didn't care about vitals, they wanted him dead ASAP to keep the crowds from rioting.
He looked dead enough and to prove it they drove a sword through him.
That appeased the Jews and they took him down and burried him.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
This site has alot, if not all, of the medical aspects of crucifixion.

www.frugalsites.net...

Before you try to argue another point on it read through this site a bit and see if your question is already answered.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
The Pharisees didn't like Jesus because He threatened their power

He was also a horrible blasphemer, claiming that god got his mom preganant, and that he is the son of god and god himself. This is a problem with having so much mixing of hte church and the state.


It seems entirely possible he could have ruptured something

The water and blood issue is usually taken as a theological statement, that it is some sort of veiled reference to the eucharist OR the water into wine miracle. It is difficult to see how a large amount of water and blood is going ot build up in person like this.

because the Romans only killed him to appease the Jews

The Romans killed him because he was an enemy of the state. He threatened the existence of the state and called himself "King". They didn't do it just because the jews inisted on it. If that was it, they'd've just lopped his head off, or the jews would've killed him, since they had decapitated John the Baptist so shortly before also.
The fact that the Roman governor condems him to death and the mode of death, crucifiction, all indicate that the Romans considered him a rebel and killed him of their own.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Lastly. Why did the Jewish high priest fear Jesus so much?

If you go along with any of the Infancy gospels, it was pretty clear that the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem didn't think much of Jesus from the get-go. And one, a historian named Annas, had a particular bone to pick with Jesus, because Jesus killed his son when his son and Jesus were both five years old. Now, there's a pretty good, personal reason to turn Jesus over to the authorities. Jesus chasing the money lenders out of the Temple was pretty much the last straw. Jesus was a big trouble-maker, and the last thing they needed was trouble.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

posted by Jeasterl: "These may have been covered in other posts
1. Friday. Three days. In 1st century Judea any part of a day was counted as a day. 1 hour on Friday was 1 day. The day started when 3 stars were visible in the sky.

2. Saturday was day 2.

3. Sunday from twilight Saturday to the [pre-dawn?] resurrection, was day 3. Jewish officials were not allowed to invoke capital punishment (especially on a famous popular man like Jesus) the Romans didn't kill Jesus for a crime. The [Romans] did it out of apathy and appeasement. Pilate seemed to regret the execution but didn't want a riot. I suspect this is why the body was taken down and not left for the crows.

4. The executioners wouldn't be fooled by Jesus passing out - the water and blood indicates a ruptured heart and the blood separating into serum and blood cells.

5. The guards would have been executed by being burned alive if they let anyone steal the body. [Edited by Don W]



I’m overwhelmed. Let me start, item by item.

1. The 3 stars is new to me. I usually hear sundown. However since it rarely rained in Judea, I guess either would work ok. Friday. Day 1. Night 1.

2. Saturday - the Sabbath - is Day 2. Night 2. One poster says there were TWO Sabbaths. I don’t know how to figure that, assuming it is accurate.

3. One Gospel says Mary Magdalen went to the tomb in the dark. Other Gospel’s say Mary M. and a woman named Elizabeth went together to the tomb and it was First Light. Dawn. Day 3. But NO Night 3. Hmm?

I disagree sharply with your characterization of the Roman solders vis a vis the Jewish people in the First Century.

[edit on 4/17/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Umm, actually cracked open a Bible and read it for myself just now,

John 19 : 31-34


31Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.

33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.


31 lends credence to the "special Sabbath someone refered to earlier as well as why they were in a hurry to get it over with
31-33 explain why they didn't break his legs
34 is the only refference to jesus being impailed by anyone

Interestingly it says in his side, not in his chest as others have said.
If it were in his side it could have been lower than his heart, more likely around the liver, kidneys, stomach, bladder, all of which contain clearish liquids and blood...

Now assuming Jesus was on a cross and the roman was around 5 to 6 foot tall, Jesus around the same height and elevated a foot in the air due to the cross,

The roman would have hit Jesus somewhere in the stomach unless he lifted his sword above his head

Also the bit about jesus having no bone broken lends credence to this because a heart shot would have more than likely hit a rib bone.


[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by donwhite
Lastly. Why did the Jewish high priest fear Jesus so much?

If you go along with any of the Infancy gospels, it was pretty clear that the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem didn't think much of Jesus from the get-go. And one, a historian named Annas, had a particular bone to pick with Jesus, because Jesus killed his son when his son and Jesus were both five years old. Now, there's a pretty good, personal reason to turn Jesus over to the authorities. Jesus chasing the money lenders out of the Temple was pretty much the last straw. Jesus was a big trouble-maker, and the last thing they needed was trouble.


Any source whatsoever on that?
I checked google and found nothing.


Edit:
I did however find this:

XVI. 1 And Joseph sent his son James to bind fuel and carry it into his house. And the young child Jesus also followed him. And as James was gathering of faggots, a viper bit the hand of James. 2 And as he was sore afflicted and ready to perish, Jesus came near and breathed upon the bite, and straightway the pain ceased, and the serpent burst, and forthwith James continued whole.
www.webcom.com...

[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by donwhite
Lastly. Why did the Jewish high priest fear Jesus so much?

If you go along with any of the Infancy gospels, it was pretty clear that the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem didn't think much of Jesus from the get-go. And one, a historian named Annas, had a particular bone to pick with Jesus, because Jesus killed his son when his son and Jesus were both five years old. Now, there's a pretty good, personal reason to turn Jesus over to the authorities. Jesus chasing the money lenders out of the Temple was pretty much the last straw. Jesus was a big trouble-maker, and the last thing they needed was trouble.


Any source whatsoever on that?
I checked google and found nothing.

My best source for Pseudographia is this one:
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

It has a very nice library of early, lost and alternative Gospels, along with links to a variety of translations and superior commentary.

Oh, and as for why they didn't stone Jesus... hey, you could kill somebody that way! Crucifixion is a slow death, certainly not one that only takes a few hours, like Jesus's supposedly. Might just give time for Jesus's cohorts to get him down off the cross before he dies. As someone else in this thread said, he didn't really do anything to deserve death. Even Pilate agreed with that. But it was important for him to go away. So you dummy-up a crucifixion, let the guy off after a while, then get him out of the city.

Of course, the details of the Passion and the spear in the side are added later.

I almost have the notion in my head that Jesus planned it all out, but he didn't realize how hard it would be on him. And he nearly did die. He also didn't figure on his roving community coming unhinged after his "death."

Anyway, I think it does have to be viewed within political and personal contexts. What was Jesus trying to accomplish? Who was in his way? And what did Salome have to do with all of it? Because she was right there in the middle of everything.




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Well if you assume he was who he said he was and was doing what he claimed to be doing,
Then he was The Christ and was performing God's will.

If he was truely the son of God then why couldn't he die in a few hours?
Would you suggest He could walk on water, heal the blind, make the lame walk and yet not be able to die quickly?

He had nothing to gain and everything to lose by going like he did if he was not who he said he was.

However if he was the Son of God, then he was doing God's will and becoming a perfect sacrifice for the world to be forgiven of sin.

Yes, he did have it all planned out.
It was written about way back in Isaiah 53

[edit on 17-4-2006 by mrjones]





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join