Did Jesus really die on the cross?

[canadarocks]

The article here... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3808904/

Quote:
"MSNBC News Services
Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET Dec. 29, 2003BAM, Iran - As search crews despaired of finding more survivors from Iran’s devastating earthquake, Monday brought moments of hope and reports of miracles: Rescuers pulled a girl out alive from the rubble of her caved-in house, and three men believed dead stirred in their white burial shrouds."

...got me to wonder if people have successfully used the arguement of "How do we know that Jesus really died on the cross?" with fundies or anyone else. I understand that Jesus did not last long on the cross before appearing dead. What tests would the Romans use to ascertain death? If the Romans really were convinced he was really dead, why the necessity of the rock over the cave. It is not likely that the Romans suspected that Jesus was not really dead and placed him in a sealed cave to finish the job?

Just wanted to discuss this and see what people thoughts were.

Thanks

 

[frisian]

The article here... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3808904/

Quote:
"MSNBC News Services
Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET Dec. 29, 2003BAM, Iran - As search crews despaired of finding more survivors from Iran’s devastating earthquake, Monday brought moments of hope and reports of miracles: Rescuers pulled a girl out alive from the rubble of her caved-in house, and three men believed dead stirred in their white burial shrouds."

...got me to wonder if people have successfully used the arguement of "How do we know that Jesus really died on the cross?" with fundies or anyone else. I understand that Jesus did not last long on the cross before appearing dead. What tests would the Romans use to ascertain death? If the Romans really were convinced he was really dead, why the necessity of the rock over the cave. It is not likely that the Romans suspected that Jesus was not really dead and placed him in a sealed cave to finish the job?

Just wanted to discuss this and see what people thoughts were.

Thanks

If I recall correctly, the idea behind the rock in front of the cave was so the disciples wouldn't steal his body and claim he had arose.

 

[Ipecac]

To believers, it's an irrelevant question. Since they believe without question everything about his life as written in the bible, such an argument would have no impact on them.

For me, you'd have to prove he even existed before you'd get to your question.

 

[Brown]

The conventional response is that a guard stabbed Jesus with a spear to be sure that he was dead. This is reported in the book of John (19:34) but nowhere else.

The book of Matthew (in chapters 27 and 28) tries to deal with a rumor that the disciples stole the body and later claimed that there was a resurrection. The author of Matthew contrives a rather implausible explanation for the rumor, namely, that the soldiers assigned to guard the tomb were bribed to spread it.

 

[whitefork]

Also in Luke 19, it's implied that a test for death was to break the legs of the crucified, but that this was not done in the case of Jesus.

The Romans - they had it down to a science.

 

[CFLarsen]

The conventional response is that a guard stabbed Jesus with a spear to be sure that he was dead. This is reported in the book of John (19:34) but nowhere else.

Really? I always understood this action to be one of mercy: To weaken him even further, to hasten the point of death. Or, conversely, an act of meanness.

This, in no way, ensures that Jeebus did die on the cross, of course. The object of crucifixion was to prolong death, and make it as painful as possible. It is very likely that a body could go into a state of apparent "shutdown", without the person being actually dead. We are not talking advanced medicine or science here.

The book of Matthew (in chapters 27 and 28) tries to deal with a rumor that the disciples stole the body and later claimed that there was a resurrection. The author of Matthew contrives a rather implausible explanation for the rumor, namely, that the soldiers assigned to guard the tomb were bribed to spread it.

I don't think the idea of having guards around the tomb of a potential religious figurehead is all that impossible. After all, the prospect of having some dead hero, whom all things miraculous could be ascribed to, would not be very pleasing to local authorities.

That guards could be bribed...hey...it's happened before!

 

[Brown]

Really? I always understood this action to be one of mercy: To weaken him even further, to hasten the point of death. Or, conversely, an act of meanness.

Well, the story in John is that the soldiers thought he was dead when they came to him, but stabbed him anyway. Many Catholic and Protestant clergy conclude from this story that the stab with the spear was to be sure he was dead, not to hasten death. Catholic and Protestant clergy also hold that the preferred "technique" for hastening death was to break the legs of the condemned, causing him to be unable to support himself by his legs and forcing him to hang solely by his arms, resulting in faster asphyxiation.

That guards could be bribed...hey...it's happened before!

These would have to be some pretty dim-witted guards to accept a bribe to start telling everyone "We were asleep on duty!" I suspect sleeping on one's watch was a punishable offense even in those days, and it seems unlikely that any soldier would accept a bribe to tell a story in which he admitted committing such a serious offense.

 

[c4ts]

Considering that the cross was a punishment reserved for political criminals, it's unlikely.

 

[Bjorn]

Considering that the cross was a punishment reserved for political criminals, it's unlikely.

Was it?

I always thought the two other guys hanging there with him were common thieves? And that's according to the book itself .....

ETA: "They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left." Mark 15 - 27

 

[Hamish]

...got me to wonder if people have successfully used the arguement of "How do we know that Jesus really died on the cross?" with fundies or anyone else. [/B]

With fundies? Your joking right?

"He did die, because it says so in scripture."

They take the gospels as.... well.... gospel.

You might as well try for: "How do we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't all lying their pants off?"

Interesting ideas but on the list of "holes you could drive a bus through" in the bible, it comes some way down the list in my opinion.

 

[Rose]

My understanding of crucifixian is that the breaking of the legs is not so much a test as an act of "mercy". with the legs broken the victim cannot put any weight on the feet, even momentarily, thus hastening the asphyxiation process. It may be the legs were broken when they thought the person dead, then a set time allowed to pass to ensure the job was done. Certainly, the whole Jesus crucifixian story stinks. Why in the world would the Romans( or the Jewish authorities) allow the body to be removed and given a private burial so quickly? Of course, Jesus was a poor man buried in a rich tomb....jeez, Jesus sounds like the perfect example of a Cult Leader...

 

[canadarocks]

Interesting ideas but on the list of "holes you could drive a bus through" in the bible, it comes some way down the list in my opinion.

I disagree. The whole "he died on the cross for our sins" and "he rose from the dead" is a huge part of the Christian doctrine. If people, even today, are placing people in burial shrouds that only appear dead (as in the story from Iran) and they arise, could it not be argued that they died for our sins and rose from the dead? No. No one would say that. They would simply say that the people were not dead in the first place (a rational assumption). Why then are people so ready and willing to believe that Jesus was actually died on the cross? (I know, the gospels don't lie and are infalliable (sp)).

I agree with Rose, the whole cruxifician story stinks.

Thanks

 

[Gregor]

Oh, the swoon theory was first discussed, academically, by German writers on higher criticism in the mid 1800s. It's kind of difficult to debate, as the argument for non-death has no textual support - there are no stories from others saying they saw Jesus alive in 60 CE.

 

[Iacchus]

With fundies? Your joking right?

"He did die, because it says so in scripture."

They take the gospels as.... well.... gospel.

You might as well try for: "How do we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't all lying their pants off?"

Interesting ideas but on the list of "holes you could drive a bus through" in the bible, it comes some way down the list in my opinion.

What are words in a book without The Spirit to illustrate them?

 

[Pahansiri]

What are words in a book without The Spirit to illustrate them?

There is a Large and clear difference between a “sprit” as to the intent of the writer, his “emotions” and thoughts demonstrated through his words. And a “Spirit” who is a separate and existing being/ entity with control over the reader as to a real and external from the reader physical or mental control.

You play many words games.

 

[Pahansiri]

Also in Luke 19, it's implied that a test for death was to break the legs of the crucified, but that this was not done in the case of Jesus.

The Romans - they had it down to a science.

Nor did they crucify thieves . These men would have had hands chopped off, crucifixion was used to humiliate political prisoners.


John 19
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

And Luke 23:39-43

 

[hgc]

...

These would have to be some pretty dim-witted guards to accept a bribe to start telling everyone "We were asleep on duty!" I suspect sleeping on one's watch was a punishable offense even in those days, and it seems unlikely that any soldier would accept a bribe to tell a story in which he admitted committing such a serious offense.

Wow! The flood of memories. As a college freshman, I used to argue with my fundy dorm neighbors, who put forth as proof of resurrection the historical fact falling asleep on duty was punishable by death. I argued for parsimony in response (not having heard of Occam at the time), that of all the explainations for how the body might have gone missing, supernatural resurrection was way down my list.

 

[I'll_buy_that]

Here's a question that has puzzled me for a while...

why is the resurrection so important? I mean it is all about the spirit, isn't it? this life is temporary, our bodies obviously decay, as does all other life forms. You can't take it with you. Why would physical resurrection be so important except for proof that he wasn't human?

It all seems strange to me, just like the insistence that his mother was a virgin.

 

[Brown]

Wow! The flood of memories. As a college freshman, I used to argue with my fundy dorm neighbors, who put forth as proof of resurrection the historical fact falling asleep on duty was punishable by death.

I have heard this from fundamentalists, too. They seem to conveniently overlook, however, the preposterous account in the book of Matthew (that the guards were bribed to falsely confess to a capital crime).

It is one thing to argue that the guards were watchful because dereliction of duty was a serious offense, and therefore the possibility that followers stole Jesus's body is unlikely.

It is quite another thing to dispel a rumor that the guards were in dereliction of duty by saying, "They really were watchful, but they were bribed to say that they weren't." In this "explanation," the guards could not be in any risk of capital punishment. The author of Matthew even says as much (28:13-14: [The priests and elders instruct the guards] "Say ye, 'His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.' And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.").

In other words, the fundamentalist argument is contrary to the Bible! The fundamentalists argue that the guards were at risk of death, but the author of Matthew says they weren't.

It is very possible that the guards (assuming there were such people) really did fall asleep on the job or left their post. This would be a more simple and more plausible explanation for the rumor than the "bribe" explanation.