Magus55

Coas, how many worse ways are their to suffer than crucifixtion? There certaintly weren't any worst methods 2000 years ago. Back then Crucifiction was so horrible it was beyond unthinkable. There may be a few things today that are worse ( although not many), but considering Jesus was separated from God by the sins he carried for the first time in eternity, there really isn't any pain or suffering worse than the crucifiction and separation from God .

What do you consider worse?

philechat

Burning in the Islamic hell, of course.

Biff the unclean

Coas, how many worse ways are their to suffer than crucifixtion?
For the two thieves it was about as bad as it gets. Jesus, on the other hand gets taken down from the cross after only a short time and the first thing Sunday morning he's visiting his friends.
The only thing I get from this story is that he didn't die.
If they chopped his head off on Friday and he was up and about on Sunday morning I'd be impressed. But they didn't. The bible says that he was tortured for only a few hours, declared dead, wrapped in bandages (fine for a corpse, better for the wounded) left on a bench and then around 36 hours later he was up and at 'em again.
It sounds pretty dopey to think that he was actually dead but got better. To say that he looked dead but wasn't seems more in keeping with the story.
And Magus I'm about as seperated from God as you can get and it feels just fine. In fact I've never felt better...so there goes that theory

keyser_soze

I'm going to forgoe the true point of the thread, and ask magus(it may have been asked already, I blanched when I saw his idiocy on torture) how he would compare the comparatively non-painful death by crucifiction vs. that of other methods. I personally don't see the "terrible" time jesus had, when it was only a rental anyway. And as to crucifiction being the most painful method of dying, you are uneducated. Do you think he would have chosen a martyrs death if it had been during the reign of Vlad the impaler? I'm sorry, having a sharpened stick shoved up your nether regions, and raised up on said pole, to slowly slide down it over the course of half a week, your internal organs left functioning, while ALIVE would seem to me to be far worse! Or to be drawn and quartered? Or to be skinned alive? Of the death by a thousand cuts? In light of the possibilities, crucifiction would seem to be the best of the alternatives.

1. So it's a lease, because he's god and knows he'll be up walking again in the morning...

2. It's just another blood sacrifice, but this time it's the sacrifice of a god who can't die, to the SAME god, who is supposedly OMNIPOTENT, so that he can forgive people for failing a test, that HE CREATED in the first place. How dumb does that sound?

3. It's FAR from the worst torture available...

How is it you see it as the ultimate sacrifice? Most anyone I know would sacrificed their life for 1 PERSON. Who wouldn't do it for everyone? You are too short sighted.

keyser_soze

Now I see that magus apparently thought people had no imagination for torture 2000 years ago. I would suggest he either starts reading history, or let's his fundy mind grasp the concept of the human ability to inflict torture. It's not a new thing! You think that somebody said, HEY, LETS NAIL PEOPLE TO A STICK, CAUSE IT"S THE WORST POSSIBLE DEATH!!!! Sorry, as I already pointed out just by a few examples(history is replete with far worse than that even) torture is neither new, nor unusual.

Christian

Lori,

Here is Rhea’s comment that I was responding to:

Asking “how can any person say that _Jesus_ had it bad?” strongly implies that Jesus did not “have it bad” according to Rhea’s criteria. The second question reinforces that.

When someone says “how could you say that xyz is the case? How can you say that and still look at yourself?” it usually means that the person speaking thinks xyz is not the case. That is not a stretch … such a thing is clearly implied.

If Rhea does think that Jesus’ suffering rises to the level of merely “bad,” then I hope she clarifies that for me. I would see that as a positive thing, and happily retract the comments you objected to.

But Rhea has not posted anything which suggests that Jesus suffering was “bad” in any sense of the word. I would not have replied to you in the same way because you have clearly stated that Jesus’ crucifixion was “certainly horribly painful.”

Maybe I am overanalyzing, and Rhea was not trying to speak in accurate terms but simply to convey a general thought. That’s possible, and I will be happy to retract any inaccuracies I have posted about Rhea’s position if she explains how I misunderstood her.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Erewon,

Feel free to project anything you want to into it. I'm simply accurately reporting the historical reality of the crucifixion.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

keyser_soze,

I thought Keyser Soze didn't really exist?

The ancient historians were unanimous in delaring crucifixion to be the most painful execution known to man at the time. I posted this earlier with the link, but here is an example:

My question is .... why should I accept your opinion on the matter as more authoritative than the Roman Jurist Julius Paulus and Seneca?

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

From the Journal of the American Medical Association:

And my question to you is, why should I accept your opinion on the matter as more credible than the voice of the American Medical Association?

I respectfully suggest you check out
this web site which has the article from the JAMA, to include diagrams and descriptions and lots of references. Written by doctors and published in the JAMA. Here is the intro:

With your medical background, you should be able to understand how crucifixion worked after reading that article.

Respectfully,

Christian

keyser_soze

Use your brain for 1 tiny second. Do you think the ability to inflict torture only happened AFTER jesus died? I think, that if anyone had taken a special interest in causing him some suffering, they could have done FAR better, don't you? Which do you think would be worse, what the romans did, or what vlad the impaler did? Which would have been the more painful? BTW, the romans weren't the world, just to answer the question with a debate point. Didn't want you to think I was merely going with 2+2=4 suppositions. I will do a search through my old books, but I do recall several tortures that predate jesus my centuries that were pretty gruesome, some of which lasted as long as a week. That is not even going into the torture of women captives, some of whom were kept as forced "prostitutes" for the armies and basically "screwed" to death. You want to put a womans suffering at the hands of a hundred men for days at a time, against that of jesus on the suffer-o-meter? BTW, they didn't have the option of rising from the dead afterwards either. Your argument is ridiculous. Do you seriously believe that torture only GOT BAD after jesus, and you base this only on the statement of a couple people who basically said it was "pretty darned bad". Peronally, I think the romans as well as everyone else were capable of putting a little thought into it.