Amos

Are you sure about that?

In Karamazov were are told that a traditional Russian wake lasted a week and if no foul odor emanated from the body they had had a saint (Fr. Zoshima wasn't). In their tradition saints are incorruptable because they have been crucified and have a transformed body, mind and soul. The other side of this spectrum are spontaneous combustions while at the foot of the cross (and I thought that all you good Irish Catholics knew this).

Radcliffe Emerson

I've been taught by folks attending seminaries that it's now known the Romans did NOT remove bodies from wood for any reason, until they were completely rotted away. The remains were then thrown to dogs to be eaten. The Romans certainly would not have removed one from the wood to honor a religious request by the Jews.
IF Jesus even existed, and was indeed crucified, his body would not have been removed from the wood, much less placed in any tomb.

Doctor X

Biff the Unclean:

Yes, but Junior did not drink as much as the Irish--Tá sé go brea!

Or it never happened.

I think trying to find a "rational" explanation for a myth is frought with danger, O' Biff [Cease pseudodrudic prose!--Ed.] This is akin to the Jn Lazarus story. It is a "set-up" in that Junior refuses to attend to Lazarus. Lazarus buys the farm and Junior seems to have made a wrong prediction . . . only to the unworthy slobs who do not know the "real story."

It allows Junior to resurrect him. Any charlatan can "heal the sick" and cast a demon or two into a pig, but bring back the dead? This has a very literary purpose.

Now, one can wrack his head trying to explain Lazarus' resurrection--okay . . . like . . . get this . . . he was in a metabolic coma . . . no . . . really . . . give me another hit! . . . Right . . . so he is in a coma . . . with no protection of his airway . . . yet he does not suffocate. . . . THESE AREN'T MY CRAYONS!!"

This reminds me of a poster trying to argue that Judas hung himself, the rope broke, had fell, and his guts spilled out . . . oh yeah . . . in between the hanging and the fall he bought a field . . . get it! He BOUGHT A FIELD . . . HE BOUGHT THE FARM!!!

Yes . . . glad we cleared that all up.

--J.D.

Radcliffe Emerson

I read somewhere about ancient documents being found that exposed Old Testament Temple leaders and magic tricks and gimmicks they used to make their believers think they were talking to, and performing miracles, duties, etc for their "god".
I wish I could recall where I read that now, it's been several months.
If Jesus existed, he very well could have known of these tricks.

I've already heard about the annointing oil they used having cannabis in it, that's another decent explanation for some of it.

Temple leaders concocted the story about sacrificing the fattest bull, because they had the munchies!

Rational BAC

Just a little curious about this part. Supposedly it took days for a crucifixion victim to die. Not hours.

Nails through wrists? Would not that cause a serious enough blood loss to cause death very quickly? Do people who slit their wrists in suicide attempts actually linger on for days before dying?

Again---am not trying to be a poop here. But somebody explain why when major arteries and veins are destroyed and leaking blood profusely--as should be expected with nails driven through wrists. ----------I would expect death within hours. Possibly within minutes.

Is it possible that part of the crucifixion "ceremony" by the Romans was to position the nails precisely so they did not hit any major blood vessels?------and therefore make certain that the death would take days and not hours as would be expected.


I could buy that. But no one has so far mentioned that as part of the historical Roman crucifixion.

(of course I am going by the latest version of the crucifixion---that the nails were really driven through the wrists as Roman SOP and not the hands (as usually pictured) because hands are not strong enough to really support a body.)

Comments on this?

Biff the unclean

Hugo Holbling--In fact, the ontological status of natural laws is open to much controversy…
Ah yes, the metaphysical ontological argument. It's amusing, the shifts in vocabulary that are used to try to lend some credibility to the position that miracles are REAL magic.
If a miracle isn't impossible then it's not really a miracle. Ascension into the heavens ceases to be miraculous if you are in an elevator. Changing water into wine is only a miracle when it is accomplished by the effect having an inappropriate cause like saying a magic word. An appropriate cause, such a watering grapevines, ceases to be miraculous.
Since they are impossible we can be sure that claims of them are factitious.

Amos--In Karamazov were are told that a traditional Russian wake lasted a week
Irish wakes have been around longer than Christianity. They last three days not because of Jesus but because that was the length of time it was decided that a person could live without a drink of water. Also three was a sacred number to the pre Christians (so called Druids) All the world was divided into threes, the red, the white and the black, and all deeds were divided into threes

Doctor X--Yes, but Junior did not drink as much as the Irish--Tá sé go brea!
Oh I dunno, I'm told the lad claimed that wine was his very blood. I had an Uncle who said the same thing about Jamesons.
Or it never happened.
I think trying to find a "rational" explanation for a myth is frought with danger, O' Biff
Well of course it never happened, that goes without saying.
It allows Junior to resurrect him.(Lazarus)
The boyo is resurrecting Lazarus it would seem because Jesus' healing miracles were all lifted from the healing "miracles" (in quotes because he went out of his way to say that they were not miracles) of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius resurrected the daughter of a Roman Senator.

RBAC--Nails through wrists? Would not that cause a serious enough blood loss to cause death very quickly?
No, not so long as the nails were left in the holes.

(of course I am going by the latest version of the crucifixion---that the nails were really driven through the wrists as Roman SOP and not the hands (as usually pictured) because hands are not strong enough to really support a body.)
Comments on this?
You could put them through the hands if they were driven through small boards first. Like putting a washer on a screw.
What most people seem to forget, including Conchobar in the OP, are the spikes through the feet. These would have added a great deal of support. The hanging that puts negative pressure on the lungs and causes death in a crucifixion can't happen with the feet supporting the weight of the body. It was the real crowd-pleasing part of public crucifixions when a guy would come around with a big mallet and break both of the victims' legs. That doesn't happen in the Jesus myth. As nasty as the story of the Passion was, it really had nothing in it that would be fatal to a healthy man in his early 30's.

Radcliffe Emerson

It's important to note that most of the miracle stories in the NT were written decades after the alleged death of Jesus. And as the writings became later and later, more removed from his death, more and more miraculous stuff seeped into the stories.

Also, as the people he told would see him return in their lifetimes began to die, stories began to emerge that Jesus was referring to some coming age. His followers clearly thought he would return during their physical lifetimes.

I think Jesus might have been a very wise teacher, who THOUGHT he as a god, or had an inside path to one, but I doubt he ever performed anything other than magic tricks.

The earliest stories attributed to Jesus are Paul's writings. Paul makes no mention of a physical resurrection, appearance at the tomb, appearance to the disciples afterward, Lazarus, walking on the water, feeding the thousands, the virgin birth. All of these are written years later.

In fact, it's known now that the earliest Christians, the people closest to Jesus, taught NONE of these things to their followers.
They also did not teach eternal damnation. These all evolved over the centuries as the organized churches who rose from the early beginnings started taking over and assuming more and more power.
The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, nor are their authors known. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Other contemporary historians from that time and region make absolutely no mention of him at all. Josephus' mention has been proven to be falsified.

Doctor X

Biff the Unclean:

It is not mere coincidence that our ancestors recognized whisky as the "water of life"--uisge beatha

Rational BAC:

I do not know where the hand thing came from--unless early writers never saw a damn crucifixion. Hmmmm . . . considering Lk-Acts has wounds in his hands this suggests ol' Luke did not know what he was writing about either. Anyways, the difference between slashing your wrists and nailing them is that you cut and open the major artery--usually the radial . . . the one on side that rotates. "Experts" tell you to cut along the length of the artery to prevent it from simply spasming . . . hot water and aspirin helps.

So . . . a nail through the middle will miss both arteries. Even if the nail nicked the artery, it would put pressure on the artery.

Biff the Rather Soil'd is correct that adding support to the feet will greatly lengthen the time to die. Most hangings and crucifixions served as warnings--the longer the body rots the better. Thus, I have to agree with scholars who feel none of the Synoptics or Jn properly describe the execution.

Now does this mean no execution happened? I do not know; I am just more certain it did not happen in the manner it was described. Anyways, this starts to get into the whole "historical Junior" debate which is fun if you have a glass of uisge beatha and free time.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Ralph:

So much for avoiding a discussion on the historical Junior. . . .

The petulent side of me recognizes that the sayings attributed to him are not at all very wise--I am willing to assume the "nasty ones" are later attributions. So, frankly, even the most intoxicated Jesus Seminarian comes up with nothing but stuff that would not make it on a poster with a picture of a flower and, maybe, a bunny.

However, someone followed someone . . . we just do not know why or who. If we accept Paul's letters to a point, Junior had a brother and followers who disagreed with him. This suggests . . . perhaps . . . will all sorts of qualifers . . . that Junior not only did not consider himself divine, his immediate followers did not either.

However . . . from your position you can easily ask "what was the source of the Miracle Man and Son of God" traditions? Even if they are lifted from other examples such as Apollonius . . . when were they lifted? However, however, it could be that the immediate followers are models for the haplessly dense disciples who never figure out he is divine . . . perhaps the divinity was a later tradition denied by immediate followers . . . or by followers of the followers. . . .

Bottom line . . . who knows?

--J.D.

Radcliffe Emerson

Actually, the more I think about your comment, the more I question the "very wise" portion of what I said also!

I do know Josephus' legitimate writings say there were people all over the countryside claiming to be Messiahs, and Jesus was a very common name at the time.