Envy of what? His following was puny, and he was 1 of 1000s of end of world naysayers. If anything he was just 1 more nuisance to be rid of to keep their power structure strong.
If Jesus didn't die on the cross then....
- Thread starter brite
- Start date
Envy of what? His following was puny, and he was 1 of 1000s of end of world naysayers. If anything he was just 1 more nuisance to be rid of to keep their power structure strong.
If Jesus did not die on the cross (and there are ppl that believe this, some even doubt if he existed at all) crucifixion may have been chosen as the method, in what would then be a narrative, because it was believable. It was believable because it was common, it was public (if enough ppl said they saw it, rumors could easily spread), it was cruel (preserved the rep of those punishing) and it was terribly saddening (served the purpose of those that wanted ppl to worship Christ). Can't think of any other possible reasons to choose crucifixion over other means of murder.
Honestly I don;t really know why crucifixion would have been chosen if Jesus did not die on the cross. And I'm not sure what the spirit of this question is. Is it "How could so many ppl believe in something that didnt happen?" or "or how could somebody not believe in something that clearly did happen?"
In any case what I do know though is that Jesus was a blessing and a warner to mankind - just thought I'd put that last bit on the record.
Envy that the people were following him, instead of the scribes, and levites. The week before he was crucified, the people of Jerusalem had welcomed him, riding on a donkey and throwing palms and robes ahead of him. These gestures were reserved exclusively for the hebrew king.
Yes, I've posted this question on two other personality forums. It received interesting responses here so I thought I'd see what responses it would receive elsewhere.
Well, perhaps you would explain your purpose in misspelling the word crucifixion as crucifixation and elsewhere as crucifiction.
Sure. Thanks for asking.
Wordplay.
There is a fixation on the crucifixion, so crucifixation. And crucifiction sounds like crucifixion.
The hypothetical question was inspired by some people e.g the Cathars, certain Gnostics etc who believe that Jesus didn't die from the crucifiction and went off and lived in France, but who do not deny that he was crucified. So, if he didn't die, what was the point of the crucifiction?
If I'm not mistaken, this was the premise for the DaVinci Code... and that guy in France who claims to be Jesus' direct firstborn male descendant.
The grounds for the possibility that Jesus didn't actually die comes from two factors. One - it normally takes days to die from crucifixion, not the hours it took Jesus. Two - it is so much easier for people to justify the empty tomb if Jesus hadn't actually died.
However, there are some factors that invalidate these assumptions. First and foremost, the Romans beat him extremely badly, and while he was on the cross, stabbed him with a spear in the chest. Severe beatings cause muscle fatigue. The back muscles would be primary in maintaining the strength to keep breathing against one's body weight. His back was the focus of the lashing. The stab to the chest caused blood loss, which also causes muscle fatigue. Secondly, the Roman soldiers would not have brought him down if they weren't sure he was dead - because a mistake like that would warrant harsh punishment, possibly even crucifixion for themselves as an example. People in that era understood that death from crucifixion comes from asphyxiation (the pressure of the body weight against the lungs as the body weakens), and they were all watching for the 'last breath'. This is why the phrase "and he breathed his last" was used in the gospels - the death sign of crucifixion. The Roman soldiers wouldn't have brought him down immediately upon death. Jesus hung there, not breathing, turning more and more pale until they were convinced of his death. Once they brought him down, several other people examined the body and confirmed his death before his body was cleaned and wrapped and placed in the tomb. People in those times had a lot of experience with dead bodies, as there were no funeral homes, and it was often the responsibility of family members to prepare bodies. They knew the difference between a blue room temperature corpse that is no longer bleeding and someone who is still alive.
Last edited:
Yes. Wordplay clearly. Well if one is in search of serious answers perhaps one should consider not playing around.
I really need to read this. The more you quote of it, the more interesting it seems.
This has also been argued about the bible more than a few times. ;-)
I think this thread is interesting, as it causes discussion on the significance and meaning of the crucifixion, since you can't discuss the implications of 'what if Jesus didn't die' without mentioning them.
Relative to the empire, Jerusalem was pretty much an insignificant backwater; relative to Jerusalem it was a big deal.
No really, his following was quite small even for Judeans. It didnt gain momentum until it reached Greece and Rome.
I have answered you. Whether you can accept the reply is up to you just remember the one you mock with your wordplay is not a player of games.
I have explained my choice of words - wordplay.
If you don't want to wordplay, then don't.
If I want to, then I will.
Whether you can accept the reply is up to you.
Who is this "one" you assume that I'm mocking?
It is in the original question, on several sites, so who is this "one"?