Bible: Word of God or Not

crucifixion is a brutal form of execution, but it is especially brutal because it is so slow. people would take months to die on the cross, eventually dying of (usually) suffocation from fatigue, (sometimes) exposure, blood loss, and (occasionally) hunger. but almost never thirst -- they kept them hydrated, to keep them alive, and prolong the torture.for a person to go up on a cross, and come down the same day is rather suspicious. and for a second reason, as well. the primary function of any form of punishment is as a deterrent. to this end, crosses were placed at city gates, and along roman highways, in plain view of everyone. and they were left there long after the victim had died, so that stench and decomposition and horror of it all would remind everyone who passed by for the next year or so not to mess with rome. they were almost certainly never allowed proper burials, and certainly not the same day they were hung. this is very, very suspicious. why not break his legs, like they did to everyone else?

---

I have experienced it!Matthew 16:28
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."Mark 9:1
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."Luke 9:27
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."I know it is not the kind of evidence you seek Spiderman, but I was answering the question in the simplest manner I could, as per Ice man's request.I'll tell you this much... Once a man meets the creator of the universe 'personally'... he can endure many a 'why'.Joh 14:23
Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.But don't you believe it for a minute... You'd make a fool out of yourself!

---

"God must know, better than anyone, how unfulfilling it is to be right, until it can be shared, with a community willing to accept it, and enjoy the glory of it."(Rob Lockett)

Rob:You know anyone here can always get a Bible for free by asking. Why don't you just allow God to reach each of us directly, regardless of your personal stamp of approval? Or do you have a problem with the Protestant Reformation?In other words, if I want to know what it says in the Bible, I read the Bible, not your journalistic snippits.

Then whatever you do... don't read the following.http://EvC Forum: The Fate Of Jesus Followers -->EvC Forum: The Fate Of Jesus Followers"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
(C. S. Lewis)

this is why it always seemed to me to be just a story, why would the romans take him down? what would be the point of crucifixion if it wasn't used to show what happens to people that cause trouble?
they could have just cut his head off or something like that i doubt the romans cared about being fair about jewish death rituals or the bodies, wouldn't you think he would end up in golgotha like all the other criminals? i'm thinking because it wouldn't have made it more dramatic if they broke his legs.personally i think they would be a bit surprised to have the guy die on the same day, normal people take far longer than that to die, longer if they want you to die slowly.it always seemed to me to be much like an urban myth, urban myths tended tward seeming factual till you dig deeper than the surface and find it has lots of facts wrong and makes little logical sense

The situation was politically loaded. Judea was occupied terrority, basically. No spot inside its borders held more potential for explosive violence than the Temple Mount in Judaism's holiest city during a religious hoiday. It is entirely credible that the Romans would defer to Jewish Passover customs.The soldiers would be acting on orders from the prefect, Pontius Pilate. Secular accounts show that by 30CE Pilate was already a veteran of several difficult episodes over causing offense. One ended in a massacre and one was resolved through the intervention of Tiberius Caesar.Pontius Pilate - Wikipedia
Section 'Pilate according to early secular accounts'Local governors in Rome were encouraged to defer to local customs as far as they were able. Maintaining peace and keeping the tax money coming in were higher priorities than showing who was boss by callously disregarding the customs of the locals. Doing the latter was a good way for a governor to lose his job--and his head.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

to be fair, as archer said, judea is a special set of conditions as a roman territory. they often do respect traditions. but the issue isn't so much respecting traditions as it is making jesus special. the other criminals were allowed the same concern. it's because you can't break the bones of your passover meal. let me know if you figure why romans are obeying obscure jewish religious traditions.

---

It's obvious you're not familiar with the Gospel accounts. The narratives take full note of the unusual nature of the early death and describe observers as being surprised.The reason given for the practice of breaking the convicts' legs was to hasten death, not to provide drama. Breaking the legs would deny the victims any weight support. The resulting stress on their ribs and lungs would hasten asphyxiation.Why hasten death? Because of the coming nightfall signifying the onset of the Passover shabbat. The Romans would gain nothing from leaving dead or dying bodies on full display in the open in Jerusalem in violation of the Torah. This would be a deeply offensive act at a time when the city was filled with fervent, devoted Jews. No governor charged with maintaining the Pax Romana can keep his job by inciting volatile crowds in that manner.To the extent that the Romans desired a public display for the purpose of setting an example, staging a crucifixion outside the city gate during a holy week would fill the need. Personally, I find it more plausible that their priority would be keeping things calm.Imagine being a foreign power (with a foreign religion) occupying Mecca during pilgrimage season in that city. How eager would you be to throw your weight around? If you're smart, not very. You would want just enough of a profile to maintain law and order. Beyond that, you would let things be. Quiet crowds are good crowds.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

First-century readers would be all too familiar with practices surrounding crucifixion. As a form of execution it was practiced throughout the empire, often in impressive numbers. Early Christians as well as Jews had very good reasons to be conscious of that fact. They could be expected to know about procedures such as bone-breaking to hasten death.Which is why a Gospel writer would feel a need to address this detail. The Gospel writers make every effort to equate Christ's crucifixion with the symbolism of the Passover lamb. A sacrificial lamb had to be unblemished, though. As arach notes, this requirement included no broken bones. So we see care being taken to mention that--oh, by the way--Yeshua's bones were not broken during his crucifixion. He died quickly without that form of assistance.___

i think he meant as a plot element in a piece of literature, not as a historical occurance.

---

Ok, gotcha. I was having trouble taking his meaning there.I'm sure the detail gets mentioned for reasons of the symbolism you described. Because sacrificial animals had to be physically perfect, the writer makes a point of saying Jesus' bones weren't broken. He buttresses this detail with a Scripture citation.The catch is that, in doing so, the writer leaves the cause of Jesus' early death unexplained.Historically, it's far more likely that every victim would get the same treatment. All would die early--before sundown, just as intended.__Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The Crucifixion was definitely a publicly visible event, whether taking place in a traditional Roman venue, or not. Firstly, it occurred at Golgotha, the 'Place of the Skull' which would lead you to guess that it was a site previously used for crucifixions. Second, it was a place very close to the city gates; and if that were not enough, the criminals were required to carry their own crosses through the city as an example to others.
Jesus DID receive special treatment, for the reasons that Pilate believed him to be a king of sorts, and more importantly, that Pilate believed him to be innocent. He gave him up to the Jews for punishment, as he had broken no Roman law.
But this 'special' treatment was anything but; it was even more harsh than the average criminal would receive, since Jesus had dared to blaspheme.
The usual method of crucifixion would be to tie the prisoner's legs to the tree, and cause a slow asphyxiation by hanging. The men could for a long period delay the hanging by pushing themselves up with their legs. When fatigue overcame them, they would die. Jesus was not bound to the cross, but actually nailed. He was unable to raise himself with his legs, to attempt to do so resulted in further blood loss. He died very quickly, through blood loss and fatigue; within hours.When the Jews went to Pilate and asked to have the victims removed for Passover, they rquested that the legs be broken,
which would indeed hasten death. The Roman soldiers were surprised to find Jesus already dead, they pierced his heart with a lance. From his heart came blood, followed by water, which for these soldiers who were indeed experienced with death, was a sure sign that Jesus lived no longer.

Welcome to EvC, anastasia. Happy debating. It's obvious you credit the Gospel narratives in every detail. Presumably you do this as a matter of faith. That's fine, but understand that your faith is not someone else's evidence.For historical reasons the details of Jesus' trial deserve to be taken with a big grain of salt compared, to, say, the description of Roman crucifixion. The interrogation of Jesus by Pilate, for example, is described as taking place mostly in private. How would the writers know any of this?The Gospel narratives differ on details about the trial. Mark (60 CE) tells us Jesus said nothing. John (90 CE) characteristically portrays him as more verbose. One detail all the writers mention: the title 'King of the Jews' got Pilate's attention.The reality remains--at every turn--that the Gospel narratives were written and disseminated under the eyes of a watchful Roman Empire. This was not a regime that recognized freedoms of speech. The writers had to be very, very careful about their portrayals of the Roman authorities if they wanted their accounts to be read at all. To read the Gospels is a bit like reading letters from dissidents in China, Cuba, or North Korea. Big Brother is watching. You can't take everything at face value. The writers don't even want you to.If NT writers were loathe to cast Roman authorities in a negative light, the situation was different when it came to criticizing Jewish authorities. Many early Christians were Jewish, true, and would be sympathetic to their people and their culture. But in the wake of the Jewish revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, anything that had the effect of distinguishing Jesus' followers from 'those' Jews would be self-endorsing.By the time of the Gospel of John (90 CE) this concern reaches the point where the writer refers to Jesus' antagonists as 'the Jews'--as if he and his disciples weren't. This writer is alone, too, in portraying the Jews at the trial calling down curses on themselves and their descendants.---On the subject of crucifixion, there would be nothing unusual about nailing.
Crucifixion - Wikipedia

quote:

---

'Archeological evidence for ancient crucifixion'

​

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus which was discovered in Jerusalem. It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.

​

The remains were found accidentally in an ossuary with the crucified man’s name on it, 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol'. The ossuary contained a heel with a nail driven through its side, indicating that the heels may have been driven through the sides of the tree (one on the left side, one on the right side, and not with both feet together in front). The nail had olive wood on it indicating that he was crucified on a cross made of olivewood or on an olive tree. Since olive trees are not very tall, this would suggest that victims were crucified at eye level. Additionally, the piece of olive wood was located between the heel and the head of the nail, presumably to keep the victim from freeing his foot by sliding it over the nail. His legs were found broken. It is thought that since in Roman times iron was expensive, the nails were removed from the dead body to cut the costs, which would help to explain why only one has been found, as the back of the nail was bent in such a way that it couldn't be removed.

​

Important references for the ancient practice of crucifixion and an examination of archeological evidence:

​

-- Tzaferis, Vassilios. “Crucifixion -- The Archaeological Evidence”, Biblical Archaeology Review 11, February, 1985: 44-53.
-- Zias, Joseph. “The Crucified Man from Giv’at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal”, Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1), 1985: 22-27.
-- Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion (Augsburg Fortress, 1977). ISBN 0-8006-1268-X.

---

Earlier I mentioned, as you do, that the legs of victims were broken to bring on asphyxiation. This idea, attributed to Pierre Barbet, has not found support in experiment, though much would depend on the posture of the victim. More likely breaking the legs of the victims helped induce death just by giving a weakened individual an added shock to the system (see Wiki).The only unusual element in Christ's crucifixion as related in the Gospels is the removal of the body from the cross rather than leaving it exposed. The reasons given for doing this--Jerusalem, the sabbath, Torah law, political volatility--are entirely plausible.But this early removal of Jesus' body from the cross could even help fuel resurrection beliefs. The body would be difficult or impossible to locate afterwards. Though crowds may have witnessed the crucifixion, no one would have witnessed a dead body on display in the days immediately following.It's not hard to imagine a few distaught disciples venturing out of hiding a few days later and making their way to the crucifixion site in the expectation, perhaps, of seeing the Teacher's body still hanging. Once they found it missing, the idea would be planted. How would they know the Teacher had died, really? They hadn't witnessed his death and now his body is gone... and cognitive dissonance starts doing its work.____

I wouldn't describe myself as just another person who puts faith up as evidence. The bible as an historic document can not be validated conclusively, but then again, neither can any other document from the period. Just to say that it dates from a certain year does not guarantee the accuracy of the author's sources. When we deal with a biblical story, and have no hard evidence that the account is fictional, then why not take the details already provided as fact? You may research a million crucifixions, but can not prove beyond any doubt that this particular one did not occur this way.
It seems like common knowledge that the conversation between Jesus and Pilate was a private one, but actually in not one gospel does it say that. Luke says quite the opposite "the whole assemblage rose, and took him before Pilate". Furthermore, Jesus only pointed out the cowardice of one Apostle, Peter. There is no problem in supposing that others were more loyal, primarily John, who remained throughout the whole crucifixion. John often-times does not refer to himself in first-person, but instead as 'one who was there', but his presence along with Mary and several others is constant till the death of Jesus. After Jesus died, permission was asked to remove his body. It was not done in secret by soldiers, and I can not credit the idea that no one was aware of his death, so later assumed he arose from the dead. We may just as well speculate that since no one saw him die, he was instead rescued and was still alive. You are assuming that he was dead, but why? because the bible SAID that a spear was run through his side. Who saw that happen? Yep, either someone saw everything, or no one saw anything. We can not at one moment speculate, and base it on the 'facts' of the bible. Understand? The bible already gives an account of how it came about that people believed in the resurrection. You may not believe in the resurrection, but as it is, trying to prove that any of it did not happen 'in that way' certainly makes it seem like you DO believe it happened in some way. So there is your evidence, it is also your faith.

Let me try it this way; Snow White is a story. Just because I can tell you the names of all the dwarves does not mean that I have faith in it as a reality. If I were to try to prove whether or not it could have happened historically, I would be taking a step in believing in the story.
It is the same with the Bible. If someone tells me what could have happened in the Bible, but the Bible says otherwise, it is the same as my telling you that Snow White had 16 dwarves. If Snow White were real, it is possible that she did have 16 dwarves, but why bother?
See, sticking to the story is just more sensible. There is no need to change the details of a fairy tale. But if you attempt to find evidence for a fairy tale, you are already giving it some credence.