How much did Jesus need to suffer?

[aggle-rithm]

I saw a special on the history channel a while back about the history of crucifixion. It ended with a blow-by-blow account of the crucifixion of Jesus as described in the gospels. Evidently, the account was very much in line with what we know about the Roman practice, which was designed to make a person suffer as much as possible so that others would be deterred from causing trouble.

The show described a very plausible theory as to what killed Jesus, saying that it was obviously a catastrophic event, since he was clearly conscious and lucid to the end ("He cried out in a loud voice, and expired.")

The account that describes "blood and water" flowing from the wound, as described in the bible, describes perfectly someone whose pericardial sac around the heart filled with fluid, then with blood when the heart ruptured.

This is if we take the gospels at face value, of course. The problem here is that it seems that Jesus got off with a proverbial slap on the wrist, by Roman standards. Crucifixees often lingered for many hours, even days, on the cross before they died. It's not an unreasonable assumption to say that maybe half of them suffered more than Jesus did.

Here's the problem: If it were so important for Jesus to suffer for our sins, then why didn't he suffer to an extraordinary degree? Why is it sufficient for him to get up on the cross and be out of his misery in a relatively short time, when so many others went through far worse?

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this.

 

[aggle-rithm]

One more thing...it is common for re-enactments of the crucifixion to show Jesus in a clearly more uncomfortable position than the two thieves on either side of him (for instance, the thieves are shown tied to the cross instead of nailed). It's obviously important to show that there was something special about Jesus' suffering compared to that of other crucifixion victims.

 

[Death Blow]

Ok, well I think I'd rather be tied to a cross than nailed to it. I don't see how being nailed to a cross is more comfortable.

Anyhoo, most of the stories of Jesus were passed down for about 2-3 generations before being written down, so the chances of things getting mixed up in the accounts is significant. For all we know, he could have been there for days. For all we know, he could have been tied to the cross instead of nailed to it. Surely you've embelished a story or two to make it sound more interesting before. I just wouldn't take the bible word for word.

 

[madurobob]

Welcome to the forums Death Blow

While I've seen no evidence to sway me that Jesus ever existed, Death Blows point about the accounts not being entirely contemporary is important. The gospels were written down hundreds of years later... was crucifixion in use then? It could be that those who wrote down the gospels figured their account of Jesus' torture was par for the crucifixion course.

I don't think they'd need to show Jesus was tortured more than everyone else, but rather that he was tortured the same as everyone else.

ETA: They have crucifixion re-enactments??

 

[timhau]

Here's the problem: If it were so important for Jesus to suffer for our sins, then why didn't he suffer to an extraordinary degree? Why is it sufficient for him to get up on the cross and be out of his misery in a relatively short time, when so many others went through far worse?

Why would the suffering be important at all? In fact, if god is all-powerful and it's his job to forgive sins, why did all that bloody and sadistic hoopla have to take place at all?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

_If_ the execution was right before passover, I seriously doubt that Pilate was in a position to annoy the locals by leaving an ongoing execution spill into passover. As I mentioned in another thread, Pilate was in a very unenviable position there, and the locals were very hostile.

To recap:

1. Pilate was of equites class, and as such couldn't command a legion. In case of military problems, he was supposed to call for help from the legate of Syria

2. the office of legate of Syria was vacant

(In other words, in case of a rebellion, he'd be well and truly screwed.)

3. the locals threatened open rebellion and appealed all the way to the Emperor for as little as Pilate dedicating some shields (without portraits or any other symbols which might offend) to Emperor Tiberius

4. Tiberius seemed to have wanted peace there at all cost too, because he didn't seem too pleased with Pilate's offending the locals to honour him

5. pretty much the only reason Pilate was able to rule at all was the cooperation of the local high priest... and even there it's not that clear who used whom

Offending the local religion was the last thing Pilate would want. If the province went rebellious due to any kind act of his... well, if the locals didn't get his head, then the Emperor would.

So, yes, if Jesus went up the cross right before passover, he'd _have_ to be brought down before the day was over.

Unrelated, Pilate is the character in that story that I feel the most sorry for. Execute an innocent or fail your country... geesh, I hope I'll never face _that_ kind of a moral dilema.

 

[madurobob]

One more thing...it is common for re-enactments of the crucifixion to show Jesus in a clearly more uncomfortable position than the two thieves on either side of him (for instance, the thieves are shown tied to the cross instead of nailed). It's obviously important to show that there was something special about Jesus' suffering compared to that of other crucifixion victims.

This whole re-enactment thing is new to me. After a few minutes of GIS, I can find no images showing the thieves in any different situation than Jesus.

 

[paximperium]

Here's the problem: If it were so important for Jesus to suffer for our sins, then why didn't he suffer to an extraordinary degree? Why is it sufficient for him to get up on the cross and be out of his misery in a relatively short time, when so many others went through far worse?

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this.

If he was just a local nut spouting nonsense, he didn't deserve any of it.

If he was god incarnate who needed to suffer to all the sins of humanity, he didn't suffer enough. He didn't suffer enough to absolve all the child rape, murder, torture genocide, etc. etc. etc. of humanity. He got off easy.

 

[madurobob]

_If_ the execution was right before passover, I seriously doubt that Pilate was in a position to annoy the locals by leaving an ongoing execution spill into passover. As I mentioned in another thread, Pilate was in a very unenviable position there, and the locals were very hostile.

To recap:

1. Pilate was of equites class, and as such couldn't command a legion. In case of military problems, he was supposed to call for help from the legate of Syria

2. the office of legate of Syria was vacant

(In other words, in case of a rebellion, he'd be well and truly screwed.)

3. the locals threatened open rebellion and appealed all the way to the Emperor for as little as Pilate dedicating some shields (without portraits or any other symbols which might offend) to Emperor Tiberius

4. Tiberius seemed to have wanted peace there at all cost too, because he didn't seem too pleased with Pilate's offending the locals to honour him

5. pretty much the only reason Pilate was able to rule at all was the cooperation of the local high priest... and even there it's not that clear who used whom

Offending the local religion was the last thing Pilate would want. If the province went rebellious due to any kind act of his... well, if the locals didn't get his head, then the Emperor would.

So, yes, if Jesus went up the cross right before passover, he'd _have_ to be brought down before the day was over.

Unrelated, Pilate is the character in that story that I feel the most sorry for. Execute an innocent or fail your country... geesh, I hope I'll never face _that_ kind of a moral dilema.

Sure, there has been the suggestion that this was known to Jesus and his followers and the events of the crucifixion were planned around it. They knew he would be captured and crucified and they knew he would be taken down early and likely survive. All part of The_Passover_Plot^WP

 

[maddog]

Hey Bob,
Even without rock-solid evidence that Jesus DID exist, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus didn't exist. There is SO much other stuff out there, circumstantial or otherwise perhaps not rock-solid... What would Occam say?

This isn't the same as "does God exist?" because we're talking about Jesus existing as a human, and all the stories, etc. about him indicate that he was human. Nor does this imply that he was anything other than human, but it seems incredibly likely that there was, indeed, a human named Jesus who had some kind of a following, and lived about that time, in that region.

Beyond that... the gospels were written, not "hundreds of years" later, but decades. To the best of my knowledge and memory (and I have studied it, though not recently) presuming Jesus died sometime in the early 30s, Paul's letters were written in the late 40s to almost 60, the gospel of Mark sometime in the 60s, Matthew and Luke around 70 - 80, and John around 100 - 120.

Then too, there were other "gospels" written in that general timeframe (Thomas, for example); gospels that were not accepted as canonical by "the church", that all equally presented Jesus as a human. So while most historical details are suspect, at best, it does seem highly likely that there was a Jesus.

As for the whole suffering question, I think that was more put up as a response to something like "if he was so *in with God*, why did he get crucified and all that?" -- I think the answer most acceptable to his followers would have had to be something like "because God wanted him to" or "he had to". Otherwise, either "he felt like it", in which case he's masochistic and psycho, or else he and/or God couldn't do anything to stop it, in which case neither is so powerful.

 

[TX50]

Welcome to the forums Death Blow

While I've seen no evidence to sway me that Jesus ever existed, Death Blows point about the accounts not being entirely contemporary is important. The gospels were written down hundreds of years later... was crucifixion in use then? It could be that those who wrote down the gospels figured their account of Jesus' torture was par for the crucifixion course.

I don't think they'd need to show Jesus was tortured more than everyone else, but rather that he was tortured the same as everyone else.

ETA: They have crucifixion re-enactments??

Crucifixion was finally banned by Constantine in the 4th century.

Weren't the details of Christ's execution massaged somewhat so as to
fulfil scriptural prophecies? I recall something about none of his bones being
broken in acordance with the prophecies (hence the spear rather than having
his legs broken as was more usual) and there were other parallels too.

There have been experiments into the physiological mechanisms at work
during a crucifixion. Look up the name Frederick Zugibe in this regard.
In historical times captives have been crucified (especially by the Austro-
Hungarian army in WW1 and at Dachau in WW2). Some religious nutters in
S. America also have themselves nailed up during some holidays.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sure, there has been the suggestion that this was known to Jesus and his followers and the events of the crucifixion were planned around it. They knew he would be captured and crucified and they knew he would be taken down early and likely survive. All part of The_Passover_Plot^WP

Madurobob, there are three problems with that kind of a plan:

1. The Romans never took someone down alive. It wasn't the first time they had to take someone down early, and in fact according to some accounts occasionally the soldiers did it on their own to go home early. The whole execution procedure included a standard coup de grace (involving apparently breaking the legs, as described for Jesus's 2 companions) for when they couldn't keep someone up there for days, and the soldiers would have been instructed to do that.

And to it, even in Jesus's case they did remember to apply that before taking those 3 guys down.

2. Crucifixion involved driving nails through the wrists and ankles. In fact, from other skeletons we have, it seems that the legs were nailed to the _sides_ of the cross, with the nails going through bone.

So even if one would somehow manage to get brought down without a coup de grace, they'd be cripped for life, plus face a somewhat high probability of bone infection.

The scourging before being put up, also didn't help much.

3. In all fairness, they couldn't know when Pilate would schedule the execution. Pilate could just as well have said, "Ok, let's put them up on monday."

To be honest, it seems to me more like the whole thing was a last weak attempt by Pilate to save Jesus, or at least shorten his ordeal, than standard procedure.

 

[madurobob]

Hey Bob,
Even without rock-solid evidence that Jesus DID exist, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus didn't exist. There is SO much other stuff out there, circumstantial or otherwise perhaps not rock-solid... What would Occam say?

I was clearly off my an order of magnitude on the timing of the original gospels.

But,I stand by my statement on Jesus existence. There is no physical evidence; no artifacts at all. There is no contemporary record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus and there are no other contemporary writings that mentions Jesus. Everything that mentions him comes from generations after his death from people who could not have any first-hand knowledge of him (but who did often have an interest in creating the myth).

While I don't state flatly that he didn't exist, I am comfortable stating that evidence of his existence is far too weak to consider valid.

 

[shadron]

It should be noted that almost all the apologetics, in which Christ's death was justified in theology, came from the writings of the church fathers in and around the third century CE and afterwards. All the justifications were created to fit the facts (such as were presented in the gospels) and to work in with the prophesies that could be located in the OT. The reasons had to be shrunk-fit to the existing facts, as it were. There is no obvious reason that an omnipotent god needed to suffer, but one had to be created, since the gospels said he did and god doesn't do things on a lark or accidentally.

I think we have here a clear case of intelligent design.

 

[TX50]

2. Crucifixion involved driving nails through the wrists and ankles. In fact, from other skeletons we have, it seems that the legs were nailed to the _sides_ of the cross, with the nails going through bone.

There is only one skeleton with evidence of having been crucified.
The body of one "Jehohanan" found just outside Jerusalem had an
11.5 cm nail hammered through one of the heelbones. That's the
only archaeological evidence there is for it from ancient times.

It's likely that tying was just as common as nailing. The mechanism is
the same, except that nailing might hasten death somewhat (and might
satisfy the more sadistic urges of the soldiers - Josephus talks about
soldiers nailing up Jewish captives in obscene and humiliating positions).

 

[alfaniner]

Here's the problem: If it were so important for Jesus to suffer for our sins, then why didn't he suffer to an extraordinary degree? Why is it sufficient for him to get up on the cross and be out of his misery in a relatively short time, when so many others went through far worse?

He died. Isn't that enough??

Except, he didn't. Came back on the third day. Knew he would, too.

So basically, he just had a lousy Friday afternoon.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

ETA: They have crucifixion re-enactments??

Crucifixion reenactments are traditional in the Philippines



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7305522.stm

 

[maddog]

Everything that mentions him comes from generations after his death from people who could not have any first-hand knowledge of him (but who did often have an interest in creating the myth).

While I don't state flatly that he didn't exist, I am comfortable stating that evidence of his existence is far too weak to consider valid.

Again, the order of magnitude... "generations" plural is at least a stretch. Paul could have had second-hand knowledge of Jesus, i.e. he likely interacted with people who had direct first-hand knowledge of him. Possibly also Mark. Peter had first-hand knowledge of him, and there are biblical letters attributed to him. Whether or not he actually wrote those... is uncertain, but if not, the ones who did probably had first-hand knowledge of Peter.

Also, most myths are clearly supernatural. The Jesus story, while containing many supernatural elements, also contain many very human elements, and are centered around one specific human, which seems to give a much firmer grounding in reality, even while much of the story goes far beyond that.

Conversely to your position, while I'm not about to guarantee that Jesus lived, I'm comfortable with concluding that he probably did.

 

[madurobob]

Crucifixion reenactments are traditional in the Philippines

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7305522.stm

Yikes.

I like how the health department warns them to get tetanus shots before jamming nails through their hands, rather than suggest they not jam nails through their hands.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Here's the problem: If it were so important for Jesus to suffer for our sins, then why didn't he suffer to an extraordinary degree? Why is it sufficient for him to get up on the cross and be out of his misery in a relatively short time, when so many others went through far worse?

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this.

Xtians also have problems with this idea and reject this model.

It is orthodox Xtian to believe that Jesus did not have to suffer as, you quite rightly point out, many people have suffered worse.

Reject penal substitutionary atonement - it is a horrible idea that protestants can get very hung up about.