Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

posted by defcon5

(1) Roman justice included flogging - flagellation - for minor offenses, and sentencing to man the oars of Roman galleys for serious offences. Usually 20 years. And not one man in 50 survived. It was equal to a death sentence but like the forced labor of the past, the Romans “used” up their bodies.

You are confusing the punishment of a Roman Citizen with that of others. A Roman Citizen could only be crucified for an act of treason; others could be for any of a number of reasons. The body of those they wished to show loss of status for was left to be picked apart by the birds, as being allowed to bury it would show the criminals body honor and status.

The fact that Pilate allowed Joseph and Nicodemus to remove and bury the body is further proof that Rome had no axe to grind with Jesus, thereby showing no rebellion occurred, and his execution was allowed solely to placate the Jewish Religious leadership of the day. [edit on 4/15/2006 by defcon5]

Reading the same report, I arrive at a different conclusion. And I never knew the Romans were so concerned what the conquered peoples thought about them. Would you say that was early spin or just good PR? Thank you for trying. I remain unconvinced.

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by jensouth31: “The reason Jesus was crucified, instead on stoned is because the Jews didn't want to be unclean for Passover . . to make a long story short, (1) they got the Romans to do their dirty work, and Roman custom was crucifixion. Also, Jewish law didn't permit stoning for what was considered (2) Jesus’ offense. [Edited by Don W]

(1) JS31, pray tell how the subjugated peoples, the Jews, got the conquerors, the Romans, to do their bidding?

(2) What was Jesus’ offense to death?

[edit on 4/15/2006 by donwhite]

1....I f you have time, study the laws regarding Passover! It was a High Holy day, and if they slew him that day, they would have been unclean, and unable to partake. I'll try and look up some scripture for you.

2......Blasphemy. He said I and the Father are one. Claiming to the Messiah. If you recall....the scribes and pharasees followed Christ where ever he went....always on the prowl to find something to use against him.... In fact they did take up stones to stone him a couple of times prior...

There is speculation that Joseph of Arimathea paid Pontius Pilate for the opportunity to remove Christ from the cross and place Him in the tomb. Joseph was well off, and Pontius wasn't above a monetary incentive here and there now, was he?

don, are you ignoring me? I hope its nothing personal. If I have offended you in the way I've reacted to a certain other poster, I apologize. He and I have a history.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Icarus Rising]

don, your post was a well written piece. I liked the chronology and scholars agree that Mark was written first and while both Matthew and Luck contradict Mark, they are not the completely different version found in John which was obviously written by a committee not copying Mark and well into the 2nd century.
You did leave out the bit about the final copy of the official Hebrew bible being produced by the author "R" in the early 2nd century.
Yoy are correct to observe that true believers are disinterested in scholarship and actual information. This truth most often belies the mantra and dogma serves as substitute scholarship for most.
I believe Einstein said it best when having failed in a two hour attempt to explain relativistic concepts to a science writer and realizing that he never would succeed intoned. in responded to her exasperated question, "Well what is real anyway""Vel I zupose zat for most people it is a matter of perception...Ja?"
Your piece is accurate and well written but it will fall upon deaf true believer ears. Don't bother them with facts; they are busy believing.
Ofcourse, all this history assumes that the character called jesus (pbuh in Aramaic, I believe) actually existed, an assumption with no corroborating evidence whatever, archeological or otherwise.
sayswho (skep by any other name)

posted by Icarus Rising: “Don, I'm curious as to your sources for your opening post to this thread. Where can I find historical records of the time that detail the actions of Jesus you describe? In my single-mindedness, I got the impression that turning over the money changers tables in the temple was what ended up getting Him crucified.

I/R, over the past 20-30 years, I have read a variety of sources, all secular. My first endeavor in this vein was finding Albert Schwlitzer’s PhD dissection from the late 1880s, “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Schwlitzer was a product of the then new German movement that came to be known as the School of Historical Criticism. The in-depth study of the Holy Bible as one would study any old book of note.

Schwlitzer went on to become a famous missionary in Africa and composer of organ music. I have read Kathleen Kenyon and William Albright. I have read Yagael Yadin’s first book on Masada, and then critiques on that work. I have read the books attributed to Flavius Josephus. And etc.

I have read all of the first 10 years of Herschel Shank’s quarterly publication, the Biblical Archaeological Review. I believe it is now a monthly. Shanks is more responsible than any other one person for the release to the public of the Dead Sea Scrolls that had been sequestered by the original two or three recipients who misapplied the nature of the assignment as being their own personal property to pass on to their legal heirs. He spent the better part of 3 decades in this successful endeavor.

“I had no idea He was trying to take over the temple and start a revolt. The whole incident seems to run counter to His non-violent, peace-loving nature. I even went so far in my own mind as to speculate the temple was being used to sell the same thing I speculate John the Baptist laced his 'water' with: opium. "Unless a man be born again of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." [Edited by Don W]

Well, I/R, that is also a real possibility. Premise 1. No one is killed for advocating peace, kindness, charity and love of your fellow man. Premise 2. Jesus was killed by the Romans. Premise 3. Why? I have put together my own interpretation of what happened in Jerusalem around this time of the year about 2,000 years ago that best employs what few facts are really known to us today. See my offer, above.

don,

I've read the whole thread and only offered my opinion. I am not disputing yours. You seem to have a lot of historical knowledge, and I was curious about, not challenging, your sources.

I think the more historical context, and the broader the base of knowledge one is able to apply to any question of past events, the more accurate the interpretation will be. I respect your version of events, and I am not trying to debunk it, just letting you know where I am coming from.

The power of the spiritual experience I recently (August '04) had in my own life is obviously driving my perceptions of biblical events, and as I re-read the Bible with my new perspective on those events, I welcome your historical perspective to help flesh out the context they took place in.

Peace to you, and thank you for your response.

posted by Icarus Rising: “There is speculation that Joseph of Arimathea paid Pontius Pilate for the opportunity to remove Christ from the cross and place Him in the tomb. Joseph was well off, and Pontius wasn't above a monetary incentive here and there now, was he?

Yes, I/R, I believe “gratuity” is from the Latin.

Don, are you ignoring me? I hope its nothing personal. If I have offended you I apologize. [Edited by Don W]

NO! I am not ignoring you I/R. I’m sorry to have been waylaid by other threads. Thank you for your concern. I will respond to your good propositions later. Have a nice day!

posted by sayswho: “Don, your post was well written . . I liked the chronology scholars agree Mark was written first . . both Matthew and Luck contradict Mark . . not the completely different version found in John which was (obviously) written by a committee well into the 2nd century.

Exactly. Which leads to this observation. By the middle of the 2nd century, it is plain where the “religion called Christianity” was going. I’m sure the argument over who was God and so on had already begun. That argument - three is one, one is three - was not “settled” until the Nicene Creed in 325.

I contend the Council held at Nicea demonstrated 1) the Bishopric of Rome was not dominant at that time. 325 AD. Rather, it showed 2) the Emperor was the dominant personality.

In fact, I’m not sure the Bishop of Rome was invited to attend the Council. And, on that point, the Scriptures indicate each assembly of Christians, what Protestants call “a church” as opposed to the Catholics “the Church” as they like to say, each church or congregation had its own bishop.

When Paul was in Rome, it is most likely there were several Christian congregations, and each would have had its own bishop, elder, or overseer. I feel sure there were many "bishops" in Rome. Paul does not mention any of them although he did preach during his time in Rome. Emperor Constantine was an intolerant person, a trait later adopted enthusiastically by the Bishops of Rome as they accumulated more power over the centuries, culminating in the Vatican Council 1, 1869-1870, when the Council proclaimed or acknowledged, the papacy as the superior institution in the governance of the Catholic Church.

You did leave out the bit about the final copy of the official Hebrew bible being produced by the author "R" in the early 2nd century.

SaysWho, put that author, “R” in context with the 2nd century BCE Septuagint, if you please.

Of course, all this history assumes that the character called Jesus (pbuh in Aramaic, I believe) actually existed, an assumption with no corroborating evidence whatever, archeological or otherwise. [Edited by Don W]

Thanks, SaysWho.

[edit on 4/16/2006 by donwhite]

Hi all/
Great Thursday.....

The Last Supper.

(Mat. 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-38 and John 13-17)

While all four Evangelists narrate on the Lord’s Last Supper with His disciples — on the eve of His cruciferous sufferings — not all relate the circumstances of this supper with equal detail.
Apart from that, the expressions used by the first three Evangelists appear to somewhat contradict those applied by the fourth Evangelist, Saint John. The only thing of absolute certainty is that the Last Supper took place on the fifth day of the week i.e. according to our calendar,
Thursday.
Likewise as clear, is that the Lord was condemned on the sixth day of the week — Friday,
remained in the tomb on the seventh day of the week — Saturday,
and resurrected from the dead on the first day of the week.
However, what brings out a difference of opinion is the relationship of the Last Supper to that of the celebration of the Jewish Passover i.e. was the Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan in the evening of the Jewish Passover

Im sorry for not explaining myself, but if anyone seeks to read more....
EXPLANATION of the four Gospels.

IX
helen

The answer to the original thread is that crucifixion was the only form of capital punishment available to the Jews at the time. But, since the thread has veered from “Why?” to “When?” here is another option.

Wednesday.('') www.freedomfightersministry.org...

The link is a thesis that is being rewritten as a magazine article, hence it is neither. So keep that in mind should you want to discuss it.



[edit on 16-4-2006 by Riddle]

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Riddle]

Why was Jesus Crucified? Well take a look at the times and what histroy would point out. For starters, Rome did not like that region, but would have to occupy it. It was too important of a land bridge between its Africa colonies and holdings and the rest of main land Europe. That is why the Romans were there. The Romans would have prefered a quiet people, who paid their taxes and did not rise up or cause problems. The Romans up till they conquored the Judaic region was usually very tolerant of other religions as long as the people and the leaders did not make problems for them. But as things would go, the Judaic people held onto their beliefes and were not too tolerant of other religions. And it pissed the Romans off. Anyways, this is why Pilot did not want to judge Christ. The idea of Crucifing Christ was the idea of the Jewish High Priests of the time. And to understand why, here is what I would propose. To begin you are the religious leader of a people, who are very devout. They support you in exchange for you to guide them in a spiritual sense. Part of your duties is to make sure that they are blessed, and cerimonies. The other part of your duties, since your lands have been conquored is to act as a go between your people and those who now occupy the country in a military way. You have been charged with collecting taxes as well as keeping the peace. You hold a lot of power in your hands. You going to give that up or accept what would be considered a challenge to your power? No, instead you would seek to, at first quite the discenter or have him go elsewhere. And if he did not your other option would be to have him killed. But remember you are the leader of a religous people, and doing such yourself would get you offed and out of a cushy job. So you go to the leader of the local military commander and ask him to do it. And to make sure he does such, you fail to speak all of the truth, leave things out.
Jesus was a Rabbi. He had a lot of ideas that challenged the order of things back then in the Judaic region. And he was popular. Unlike the other rabbi's there and the high priests, he did not have need of support from his followers, as he was a carpenter. Wood in the middle east is a luxury item and someone who was a carpenter would have done very well, and made a good living. We know he was a rabbi, as the religious laws of the time were very specific, and he would have been stoned for doing what he did. But he was not. Ok so he is a popular Rabbi, and a threat to the order. The high Priests needed to move fast, hence the trial and movement on their part. And then they decided they could not let him live, so while they were out taking him to Harod, you can probably bet that they were sending messages and or messengers to Pilot urging him to put Jesus to death as a symbol for those who would challenge the order of things. Hence when he was brought before Pilot a second time, Pilot probably did not see reason, but to keep the peace bowed to the will of the high priests, who would have made sure the crowd was in favor of that action. He probably took the time to ask them what they thought, only to get more and more words that were not of Jesus, but rather suposition and thoughts of what may happen. Hence he left the decision to the High Priests and had him crucified.
Torture has been a popular way of getting information, as pain can be used, for such. Hence the beating and flogging Jesus recieved was probably used for such. Crucifing him was a means for the high priests to use as a symbol to the people saying, if you do not do what we tell you, that is going to happen to you, and let this be a lesson.


Well that is my thoughts on what happened during that time.

Why Was Jesus Crucified? But Not Stoned?

Because the story is an allegory.

The Jesus story is not unique - there are other life/death/rebirth deities who were born to a virgin at the Winter solstice time, died on a cross/stake/tree and rose 3 days after their death (this is where the story always ends by the way, because it loops back to the beginning).

The story is a Solar allegory, and the Jesus version is, I guess, the 'official' version of this story for the Age of Picses (Christianity uses the symbol of a fish, Jesus is the slain Lamb of God, the end of the Age of Aires).

Jesus is the Son of God, the Sun of God - The source of all life, he dies so that we may live.... Every evening the Sun goes below the horizon into the underworld, where he is reborn every morning a new. Over the course of the year, the Sun travels through 12 signs of the zodiac, and the Jesus story can be related to this journey through allegory - 12 signs of the zodiac, 12 disciples. John the Baptist = Aquarius, and so forth....

More details here: home1.gte.net...

There are many books about this subject, it's an interesting one certainly.

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 them.

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 tyrannical leaders.

Icarus Rising
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 his lead.

marg
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.

defcon5
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.

riddle
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.

sdcigarpig
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]

OK, let’s say Jesus was crucified around 12 noon, on Friday. Gentile time. Forget Jewish time. Forget Jewish customs because I will not ever be happy enough to agree the Romans tailored their actions to fit Jewish religious laws. That is just not plausible. To me.

Then let’s say Jesus was out of the grave by 9 AM Sunday.

Anyway you count it, anyway you name it anyway you try to define it, this amounts to 45 hours. Forty-five hours is slightly less than 2 days. Anybody’s time.



[edit on 4/16/2006 by donwhite]

Jesus was crucified so that the prophecy "A man who hangs on a tree is cursed" could be fullfilled- it was his duty to die for you and be punished in your behalf. That's the reason why. Also in the psalms the Messiah/son of David is supposed to die dehydrated and with disjointed bones, crucifixion is one way this can happen (one of the few actually). On the Roman issue- the Romans actually were reasonably well behaved with conquered territories, Paul for instance was a dual citizen and benefited fully from his rights as a Roman citizen.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Nakash]

The romans were well behaved, as long as there was complete obedience and utter servitude to Rome. Lots of peoples chaffed under roman rule, and of couse, lots of peoples accepted it and thrived under it.

Originally posted by donwhite
OK, let’s say Jesus was crucified around 12 noon, on Friday. Gentile time. Forget Jewish time. Forget Jewish customs because I will not ever be happy enough to agree the Romans tailored their actions to fit Jewish religious laws. That is just not plausible. To me.

Then let’s say Jesus was out of the grave by 9 AM Sunday.

Anyway you count it, anyway you name it anyway you try to define it, this amounts to 45 hours. Forty-five hours is slightly less than 2 days. Anybody’s time.



[edit on 4/16/2006 by donwhite]

You need to seriously rethink things.
Read up on some history, and culture and you'll realize what you've been saying is a mistake. But then, even if you did, you still wouldn't accept you made a mistake because that's human nature.

First off, the Romans respected other cultures a LOT. As long as one of their conquered nations adhered to Roman law, and didn't directly cause any problem to them, they didn't care. The Romans didn't want to cause a rebellion, or any unrest by ignoring Jesus, so they let them do whatever they wanted to do so that they would just shutup.
You're very biased against Jewish culture, while I'm somewhat offended, I understand that a big portion of the world is. Jewish time-keeping is very different from the western world, and when a day ends and when a day begins is quite different from what you're used to.

Jewish customs and timekeeping were NOT a threat to the roman empire, thus they didn't care who said what about when.

As for why he was crucified instead of stoned, it might have had something to do with the fact that the crowd kept shouting "Crucify him!" if I was a soldier in front of a giant angry mob, I'd do what they said.

posted by Mbuhir: “You need to rethink things. Read some history and culture . . The Romans didn't want to cause a rebellion, or any unrest by ignoring Jesus, so they let them do whatever they wanted to do so that they would just shutup.
[Edited by Don W]

“Ignoring” Jesus? “Let ‘them’ do whatever they wanted?” I do not think there was anything benign about Roman conquest and subsequent rule. Rome did not get to run the Mediterranean basin by being “nice guys.” I disagree with you on this point, Mbuhir.

“You're very biased against Jewish culture, while I'm somewhat offended, I understand that a big portion of the world is. [Edited by Don W]

I’m sorry to hear you say that, Mbuhir. I have never engaged in any anti-Jewish conduct or speech. I have said elsewhere in my postings that Jewish people, alone of all people I am aware of, and under constant persecution in Christendom since 1492, if not before, have managed to preserve the tradition of scholarship and made civic contributrions, and kept the essentials of their ethnic identity intact.

I know Jesus was a Jewish person. I know the early Christians meet in the synagogues. For some time, I don’t know when it ended, Christianity was regarded as another Jewish sect. A part of Judaism. I’m sure this concept ended gradually, but I don’t know if the end began at Jerusalem or ended there. No one in my family ever used the term ‘Christ Killers’ derisively. Nor have I. I don’t “believe” in life after death, walking on water, miracles, or putting demons into pigs.

If you are referring to the on-going Israeli Palestinian problem, I do not approve of the Israeli position there, but this is not to say I am anti Jewish. A lot of Israeli’s don’t approve of the government’s position either.

I am pro Hamas. I was anti Arafat. He was not helping his own people. Israel has tanks, F15s and F16s. Apache helicopters. Rockets and armored cars. Satellite controlled battlefields. The PA, OTOH, has nothing. I accept that suicide bombers are a grim necessity, a weapon of last resort. I’ve always said, one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero.

Jewish time-keeping is very different from the western world . . Jewish customs and timekeeping were NOT a threat to the Roman Empire, thus they didn't care who said what about when.

I think you are being unduly naive, Mbuhir. The First Jewish Revolt was in the 160s BCE, against the Salucids, who were more or less subservient to Rome. The Great Revolt of 64-70 CE ended in the Jewish Diaspora of some of the inhabitants of Judea. The next Jewish Revolt was in 115 CE and the Third Jewish Revolt - the Bar Kochva Revolt - was in the 130s CE. Palestine or Judea was a constant source of trouble to Rome.

“ . . the fact that the crowd kept shouting "Crucify him!" if I was a soldier in front of a giant angry mob, I'd do what they said.

Not if you were a Roman soldier. You’d follow your captains orders to the death. You’d never let an band of loud-mouths cause a Roman soldier to abdicate or surrender his authority. Uh-uh, Mbuhir, methinks you’re not up on the ultimate Roman army disciplinary tool - decimation.


[edit on 4/16/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Nygdan

riddle
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, ...

You are quite correct Nygdan that the Romans had many methods of execution to choose from. The Jews however, had been stripped of most of their power and did not have the authority to order executions. If they did they would have stoned Jesus for blasphemy. Had they gone to the Romans with the blasphemy charge they would have been sent packing unless there were some extenuating circumstance that would concern Rome.

This is why they went for the second charge, one that would concern Rome, treason. This worked in their favor as they really wanted to kill Jesus and the preferred punishment for treason was crucifixion. We know that this is why He was executed because Herod placed the charge "Here is the King of the Jews" on top of the cross.

No one, either in our day or theirs, rises to that level of power by being politically tone deaf. Thus it benefited both parties because Herod was able to demonstrate what happens to people that claim to be king other than Caesar. The Jews benefited because they got rid of a problem without getting blood on their hands (the Romans did the dirty work for them) and were able to enjoy the holidays in peace.

The plan worked well too. For a few days. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that one.

"Ah, boss. Remember that Messiah dude we had killed on Wednesday? Well He's back raising desciples again."

Hebrew day ends at sundown. Check with your Jewish friends

Day 1 - Started Thursday night after sun-down - Thursday night of the western day is the beginning of Friday for the Jews.

Thursday Night - "Jewish Friday" Jesus held the last supper. He shared and began the first holy communion ( the new covenant ) with his disciples with the bread and the wine. Jesus gave a new Commandment, ( Maundy - meaning "commandment" ) to love others as Jesus loves us. He was betrayed by Judas. He was arrested. He was tried, all at night. This was Friday of the Jewish day. When Jesus awoke Friday morning...still Friday, he was led up to Golgotha and Crucified. It's still Friday Folks. Jesus Dies on Friday. Before sundown. All this happenes on what Jews would consider to be one day...Friday.

Day 2 - Starts Friday after Sundown. Friday after Sundown is Saturday for Jews. So day two is from Friday Evening and Saturday until sundown.

Day 3 - Starts Saturday evening at Sundown. Yes that's right, Sunday begins Saturday night and lasts until Sunday evening at Sundown.


Re-cap

1. Jesus crucified on day one ( 1 )
2. Went to hell on day two ( 2 )
3. Rose on day three ( 3 )

No where have I heard either of the following:

A. Jesus was crucified and then three days later he rose.
B. Jesus was crucified and then more than seventy two hours later he rose.