River

What are you talking about? Dead Bodies DO NOT BLEED because the blood congeals rapidly. I am a medical student and I have never seen a "bleeding dead body" [ as of yet]

What the Bible says about Jesus bleeding when he should be dead gives a clue about the nature of his ...


---River

dado

may it always be that way for you - and i mean that sincerely. i'm a veteran and freshly dead bodies do indeed bleed. think about what you're saying: if dead bodies don't bleed, there would be no blood in a guillotine decapitation.

River

Perhaps you are right... the bodies we use are not exactly freshly dead ....hmm perhaps it depends on the interval between rigor mortis..?


--River

TySixtus

Thanks, dado. That's exactly what I mean. Hang a guy up, stretch his arms over his head, and stab him in the ribs. If he's been dead for a few hours, blood will still ooze out.

Ty

fallingblood

Ok, I agree there is alot of speculation on my part. But I think the strongest point I can show is that Jesus was only on the cross for a maximum of 6 hours. Crucifixations would last days. They wanted the most agony they could get out of the people before they died.

Plus Jesus's legs weren't broken, which was common for the soliders to do because it would speed up the process (by having your legs broken, it would cause you to suffocate). And the peircing Jesus was a miss translation. It just says that they poked him.

dado

yep, assuming the details are actually historical, you do have a solid point in your favor there. crucifixion was many things, fast not being one of them.

TySixtus

Is there an actual time listed for how long he spent on the cross? And hadn't he already been brutally flogged before hand, thus weakening his constitution further? And if they did use nails (uncommon, as crucifixion was carried out by tying the unlucky bastard to the boards) blood loss from huge wounds in his hands and especially feet (lots of vessels down there, very little muscle, especially through the bridge) I can see him giving up the ghost in a few hours.
Finally, I think you are a litte confused on the leg breaking thing. That was done as a kindess to people, so they would die faster. (If someone decided they deserved it; a merciful state figure, perhaps.) It was also done to make sure that they were, in fact, dead. Crucifixion was less about death and more about making a point- "piss off your Roman Governer and see what happpens" kind of thing. It was meant to be a deterrent, as it is one nasty way to die. Which is why they lined the roads with crucified criminals.

Ty

DaMan121

I think youve watched the Passion too many times I dont think the bible has anything happening to Jesus outside the thousands of 'ordinary' crusifictions.

fallingblood

They didn't do anything special to Jesus. As far as they were concerned he was just another guy to hang from a piece of wood.
And yes, they give the time he spent on the cross in the Bible. You just have to do a little math.

TySixtus

Matthew 27: 26
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Flogging: From Wikipedia, search string 'Flogging'

In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would be made to approach a state of hypovolemic shock, due to loss of blood.

For the record, I only watched that shitty snuff film once, and I'm glad I did. Made me even more proud to call myself an atheist.

So, having been whipped with little pieces of metal, then dragged through the street, and having your hands and feet punctured with rail-road ties, I'd say your number would be up pretty quick, no matter how many times you walked back and forth from Galilee.
I agree with you, though, that his crucifixion (if he even existed, for that matter) could go either way. I could see his Sanhedrin friends wanting to torture him before he died, and hurt him as much as possible for his blasphemy. On the other hand, scourging was common, and the Romans meted out physical punisment. That isn't something they delegated to their subjects.

Ty