Barbarian

Some guro content injected here: (1) breathing out is what is difficult when crucified - the force pulling one's arms apart in that position is generally bigger than one's weight (it is , where G is the body weight and phi is the angle between the arm and the horizontal; the less this angle is, the worse the force, in fact for a realistic 25 degrees each arm is pulled with a force equal to 118% of the total body weight, for 20 degrees it is 146%, for 15 degrees its 193% and for 10 degrees it is 288% of the body weight - separately for both arms), and this expands one's ribcage too much. (2) pulling up would be impossible because of the force needed to do this and also because the arms would go asleep after a while. The victim had to push himself up against the nail driven through the legs (this is why the arms can simply be tied to the cross, not necessarily nailed - the nail through the wrist is a nice gory detail but useless as the arms go insensitive after a short while). When the executioners got bored, they broke the lower legs of the victim with a stick, so that such pushing up became impossible, although I expect the victims kept desperately fighting against the pain of the broken bone for perhaps one more hour.

Don't look like that at me. I have read all this in the appendix of a book about the Shroud of Turin.

Emuse

Some people are so busy trying to disprove the Bible that they ignore the fact that it can be helpful in answering this question.

The people at the time of Jesus had a propensity for inventing back from death stories. Jesus asked his disciples whom people thought he was. All of their replies rested upon the assumption that Jesus was some sort of prophet who had come back from death ... thus proving that such claims were commonplace. In Matthew we find the story of previously deceased saints walking around Jersualem after Jesus' death. The story had to come from somewhere! A significant number of people at the time must have been claiming that they had met dead people in Jersualem highlighting once again that such claims were common.

Most apologists focus on the issue of "Why would the disciples steal the body?" and I think that most sceptics are too focussed on trying to rubbish the Bible to miss a possible answer. The body of Jesus went missing on a night when there was a body of Roman guards outside the tomb who did very well financially out of the disappearance of the body! It is clear later on that they were quite prepared to receive bribes so any apologetic argument trying to protect their integrity must fail! When the disciples started claiming that Jesus was alive, the guards would have had no reason to produce the body and every reason to conceal it!

teeuuare

Find a much more thourough discussion of the historical Jesus in a series of editorial rebuttals by secular web friend Jeffery Jay Lowder and others here: The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence".

Lowder has many reviews that would help understand atheist arguments against belief in Jesus.

gagundathar

I believe that (assuming a historical Yeshua) he was a dissident and a potential Judean king. The political aspects of the entire story are usually glossed over by most Christians, but a careful reading of the stories will give clues that the disciples were more of a bodyguard than a bunch of students.

[He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.] Luke 22:36-37

But, even so, the entirety of the gospel stories is presented from a third person semi-omniscient point of view, just like a fictional tale would have been presented. Ask yourself who witnessed Yeshua's moment of doubt in the garden of Gethsemane. It is most likely semi-historical fiction.

Gracchus

For every person who died for the truth, thousands of persons have died for lies. Lies, after all, are so attractive.

As Hitler observed, big lies are more likely to be believed than little lies. As a corollary, any lie is more likely to be believed than the truth.

Truth is troublesome, hard, sometimes impossible, to understand, and, more often than not, offers scant comfort. Lies, make Christians, Nazis, zealots, and patriots feel better about themselves when they commit abominations and atrocities.

:wave:

teeuuare

What will the poor atheist really on when committing abominations/atrocities? Assuming they only stand on truth... do they necessarily accept the bad feelings entailed?

JEST2ASK

Interesting analysis (very valid points) and I really agree that perhaps there is a lot of projection of preconceptions from both sides regarding the texts ... it is (IMO) all but impossible to place ourselves into the world of the writters or their auidences ...


However I am not ready to assume that there were guards either Romans or from the temple assigned to guard any tomb ...

JEST2ASK

Hello Teeuuare :wave: ... I generally find reality a reasonable basis to judge actions either my own or those of others ... which means when a "greater good / higher purpose" is invoked ... it must be evaluated as well ...


I think it is somewhat interesting that Christainity requires (IMO) abandonment of many basic human emotions ... e.g. Of course all humanity deserves to go to hell ... Of course suffering in the physical world is Man's fault not God's ... I mean after all sin corrupted evrything ...


Do a search on the Joshua Challenge

Yahzi

There are no conflicting experts. There are historians and theologians. Which one are you going to trust when it comes to history?

You were presented with numerous rebuttals in the very first response.

If you're not going to bother to read our responses, why should we make them?

RPS

How long is the list of historians who subscribe to the idea of a wholly mythical Jesus? I'm not aware of any academic historians, though a number of conspiracy theorists on-line make such claims, but I could be wrong. As far as I'm aware, there are indeed "no conflicting experts" -- all agree that an historical Jesus existed.