Was Jesus executed or "crucified"?

[kentuck]

And what was the difference? Wasn't crucifixion the accepted means of execution in those times? It was reserved for the worst criminals. But Jesus was no criminal. He was a martyr. He died for our sins.

Fifty years ago, the idea of crucifixion seemed like the most cruel act humankind could do to another human. However, today, we hear of horrible and unmentionable acts, chopping people up and putting them in a refrigerator to have for supper and raping small babies, etc. Have we lost our souls?

[qazplm]

1. both

crucifixion was the means by which executions were carried out, see the guys on the left and the right of him, common criminals.

We have a long way to go, but we were BY FAR crueler in those times than today.

Heck we were crueler in the 1800s then today by far. Things only seem crueler because things have gotten better and we are use to the idea of women universally being considered property (to be raped, killed, or sold at whim), people in general being considered property, slavery an accepted idea (even by the slaves), raping and pillaging the universal means of conducting warfare, children working, no minimum wage or considerations for the poor, etc.


We have a ways to go, but we've got a lot more "soul" than perhaps any time in human history.

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. Well, since saviour god-men were a dime a dozen back then....

and Jesus is just another in a long line of such men to have almost identical stories, it stretches credulity to the utmost to think that this guy actually existed in the first place as opposed to being merely the personification of the story of the suns movements through the seasons that he actually is.

So the point is rather moot, is it not?

The Romans crucified people to make an example of them and they weren't taken down after three days. They were left to rot in the sun, for all to see.

"He died for our sins."

Bollocks.

[AnArmyVeteran]

3. If Jesus died for our sins, why does the Catholic Church blame the Jews for killing him?

You would think Catholics would be happy the Jews killed Jesus because if they didn't kill him he couldn't have risen three days later. And it would have made the entire idea about being 'reborn' a moot point. So why aren't Catholics and Christians happy the Jews killed Jesus?

And since the Catholic Church still holds a grudge against the Jews for killing Jesus does that mean they are mad at God too, since Gob preordained the murder of his 'son' long before it happened?

It's all so hocus pocus to me. I'd like to see a world free of religion. It would be a much more peaceful place and have a lot less hateful people. I believe religion is a sickness, where only weak people are attracted to it to try to fill some need.

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. Probably because the Catholic Church was founded by Romans

and they wanted to let themselves off the hook, even though they did the actual crucifying.

In fairness, Pilate tried to get out of it, but the Pharisees demanded it. So there's plenty of blame to go around. And it was all God's plan anyway, so that should mean everyone gets out on a technicality. Except maybe Judas Iscariot, because he let Satan enter into him, sold out like a DLC'er for 30 pieces of silver, and then offed himself.

[alphafemale]

9. even Judas may be getting a "bad rep" unfairly.

I've heard some teachings say that Judas did what he did because he was the one who most believed the miracles he had already seen and thought his friend was somehow "supernaturally" protected. He thought he was enabling Jesus to "stick it to the corrupt establishment." The money wasn't important. That's why he was tossed aside. It explains the anguish at his friend's death of him killing himself.

I have to say that's a much more interesting analogy than the typical...Judas is bad because...well he's bad.

and I'm an agnostic by the way...but there are many compelling stories that are religious.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Some Say Judas Was Upset With Jesus For Not Fomenting A Rebellion Against The Romans

Or maybe he thought the arrest of Jesus would foment the rebellion.

[alphafemale]

21. from the telling i heard that's what he thought was going to happen

He thought his friend was going to do "another miracle" right in the face of the evil empire. And that would show them once and for all.

And then he did what he thought he was supposed to do...but then had to watch his friend die horrendously because he had turned him in.

And the miracle that Judas expected didn't happen.

His grief was unbearable.

[paulsby]

17. try reading the book of judas

it is a gospel that was rejected for inclusion in the bible, fwiw.

it places judas in a very different light, as THE favored apostle who was doing jesus' bidding.

the document has been authenticated (as coming from the 2nd century iirc) in terms of age/origin and certainly offers a rather different view of the whole "betrayed with a kiss thang"

frankly, i think anybody wanting a broader and imo more complete view should read the judas gospel as well as the thomas gospel.

the gospel of thomas holds a view of jesus (and god ) that reminds me a lot of quaker beliefs and practices

[alphafemale]

20. the book of Mary is not to be missed either.

there are obvious reasons these readings were cut from the church/state established religion

[paulsby]

22. i haven't read that one, but i agree that from what i hear

it would certainly threaten concepts of patriarchy etc. at the time (heck, at OUR time too)

[Berry Cool]

32. Then you are accusing many of us of being sick and weak.

Please stop being intolerant of believers, and please stop jumping to conclusions about what they all believe.

[ingac70]

4. Jesus was viewed as a political criminal,

hence the nasty punishment.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. How About When Jesus Says

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

[tkmorris]

14. Well sure, but in this case it's silly

How could anyone have benefited from Jesus' death? Was God just sitting up in heaven saying "Yeah I was gonna just wipe out the human race and start over, but now that my boy has gotten himself crucified I'm gonna rethink that"? If God is really, well, GOD, why would he require such a gruesome human self-sacrifice? Couldn't he have just "hey, I forgive you"?

The whole thing is an absurd and archaic fairy tale from the Dark Ages of humankind.

[Go2Peace]

28. The idea is that mankind was stained with imperfection (sin), the perfect was necessary

to sacrifice. The death was the "punishment" required and the resolution.

What I don't get is that it says in that same Bible that *all sin** was done away with. Why are churches still obscessed with it if it is done away with?

Most people that profess to be "Christians" have little idea what it means. They just get their religion from someone elses idea rather than the book and historical figure they claim to follow.

[katandmoon]

26. What is your evidence Jesus even existed must less ever said that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. From The Writings Of Josephus, Pliny The Younger, Tacitus, And Suetonius For Starters

Also, the Apostle Paul while he didn't personally witness Jesus' ministry he met people who did.

[jeepnstein]

36. Don't be too sure about Paul.

He was a rising star in the religious establishment of Jerusalem just prior to his rather dramatic conversion. He was there for the stoning of Stephen. The Disciples were afraid to meet with him for a while. If we believe the scriptures then we can also say that he got to speak directly to the Lord that day on the road to Damascus.

[kentuck]

7. Here comes Peter CottonTail...

Happy Easter everyone! :-)

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "It was reserved for the worst criminals"

Until fairly recently, executions for all sorts of crimes both real and imagined were common and grotesque. Our horror, for example, at sharia 'justice' stonings for imaginary sex crimes, is separated by less than 300 years from our own quite similar behavior.

Other than that the answer to your question is 'yes'.

[supernova]

11. Crucifiction was the preferred method of state execution

during the Roman Empire.

In the narrative, Jesus is put to death by crucifiction because he was becoming a PR nightmare for Herrod and Pilot.

[msongs]

13. lol judas should be a saint cuz with no judas no jesus., according to the biblical myths and tales

[Kind of Blue]

16. Exactly. According to the Gospel of Judas Iscariot

The plan was between he and Christ to reveal Christ's identity to get things moving.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327692

"Q: This is not the Judas Iscariot that we know from the Bible. In the Bible, Judas betrays Jesus, but this gospel tells a different story -- Judas' version of what happened. How is it different? What does he say?

A: First of all, Judas and Jesus are meeting in some nether land possibly after the Resurrection. There's no direct mention of the Resurrection. Judas is a different kind of character. He's the person who is asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. And that sacrifice is to sacrifice the life of Jesus in order that Jesus may attain eternity and immortality... Judas is actually Jesus' best friend. Judas is the one who enables Jesus to fulfill his mission -- to die and to release that inner spark within himself and within all of us that is the divine. And that is the concept of this absolutely rare 2nd-century document, which is just coming to light.

Q: Jesus in this account instructs Judas to betray him?

A: Yes... and it's implied in some words in the actual canonical Testament -- but in here, it's quite explicit. Jesus is asking Judas to make the ultimate sacrifice -- to sacrifice himself -- and to enable Jesus to fulfill his mission on Earth.

[H2O Man]

15. Yes.

It was both a form of execution, and used to put fear/hatred in the general population, plus cause humiliation for those killed in this degrading manner.

And yes, we are at a foul level at this point in time.

[valerief]

18. He was the subject of enhanced interrogation. nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

23. Cheney and tea baggers would love it as part of their stable of torture!!!

[Greyhound]

19. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Jesus" ever existed at all.

In fact, though it rattles the bars or religiosity in the faithful's minds, there is significant evidence that he did not exist and was an amalgam of several prophets in the day.

[qazplm]

25. I don't think there is "no evidence"

I agree that the evidence could point to him either not existing or being an amalgamation but there is at least some evidence that he existed.

Obviously, whether he was divine is strictly a matter of faith.

[Go2Peace]

29. Not true, believe what you will about Jesus, but his presence at the time is scientifically valid

[Union Yes]

24. Jesus is a mythological figure.

[Go2Peace]

30. Naw, you have been watching too many "zeitgeists". LOL

Believe what you will about the man, but the historical record is as strong as any non-king figure. Even refences to him by people of the Jewish faith. I don't know why it is necessary to for some on the net (not you, zeitgiest etc) to make such false historical claims. It's pretty simple, believe what one wants. It is just as easy to claim he was only a man, in fact easier than to claim he was never a living person.

[Deep13]

38. People repeating earlier stories is not evidence.

The fact is that there is no evidence that he ever existed outside of the mutually-contradicting accounts of the cannonical gospels. And there is plenty of circumstantial evidence both in the NT and accounts of other myths that show the whole story to be derivative and made-up.

Whatever one wants to believe, the objective facts remain the same. He either existed or else he did not. Whether or not any living person was the basis of the Jesus myth is almost irrelevant. The fact is that the Jesus of the NT did not exist and it's mythology was lifted from other sources.

[Berry Cool]

33. There is no need for "evidence."

Faith is faith. It requires no evidence for those who believe. For those who don't, no evidence could possibly be enough.

[Deep13]

37. So how did people become believers in the first place? nt

[Igel]

31. We hear of foul acts today, true.

Keep in mind there are far more of us today than then, so we'd expect a lot more foul acts than we actually get. There are probably fewer truly cruel murders or executions committed today with 6 billion than in 25 AD with perhaps 10% or less of the current population.

Cut off a person head with a dull stake knife? Consider Vlad the Impaler's rectal hangings, where the victim would squirm with a stake up his butt for many, many hours before he moved so much that the stake caused enough internal damage for him to die; and if he were still, he'd still eventually bleed to death.

And remember that the foulness of an execution doesn't involve the corpse. Leaving it to rot isn't brutal to the person involved--once dead, only the living care about the body (and sometimes even then not so much). Hacking a person to death is hacking a person to death--not all that long a process; what you do with the body, bury it, cremate it, pickle it, or shove it in a fridge to fricasee or curry for your gardening club potluck is utterly beside the point if you're pondering the cruelty of the killing.

Hence crucifixion's cruelty: You're put up and you're in pain. But then the fatigue and cramping start--it hurts too much to pull yourself up, but if you don't you're asphyxiated. So you alternate the two.

You think waterboarding is bad? Now imagine that for a day or three you're in excruciating pain unless you're actively working on waterboarding yourself, and the only way to stop the terror of waterboarding is to subject yourself to excruciating pain. Those are your choices--which you pick at any given moment is up to you and the physical limits of your body. Then your body does the choosing for you and you suffocate.

The real horror is that it's all impersonal and yet oddly volitional. And mass produced. Torture somebody to death? That takes active intervention by the torturer. Crucifixion is different in quality because it's so different in quantity. A small group of men could joke, drink, eat, and play games while a score of people are slowly asphyxiated at their own hands.

[jeepnstein]

34. It doesn't matter, really.

He knew what he was doing when he went to Jerusalem. He spent time telling his disciples about it beforehand, not that it did much good because they still panicked in the ensuing events. He wouldn't have had it any other way. There's no real use in blaming this or that group because what happened was nothing less than God's will. Everyone dwells on the crucifixion but don't talk that much about the best part of the story. You know? When He got up and walked out of the tomb after three days?

As far as depravity goes we have a long way to catch up with the Romans. So far nobody is using their political opponents as Tiki torches, or feeding them to wild animals at the Super Bowl, or enslaving them for use in gladiatorial combat. Man has been exceedingly cruel since the beginning of recorded history.

Or how about the Carthaginians? There is more than a little evidence that infants were used for human sacrifice.

We are no more or less depraved today than ever before. The times may change but people don't.

[Deep13]

35. The NT suggests that he was executed for treason...

...for claiming to be king of the Jews.

Of course, before this can be a valid historical question we first have to demonstrate that JC actually existed and was crucified.

As far as our sins go, speak for yourself. Since the concept of sin is confined to religious believers; I submit that only believers sin. And since you brought it up, how does killing Jesus make us less guilty rather than more so?

The treatment of some illnesses is worse than crucifixion. Some of these folks linger for years in pain and nausea. (Thanks, god.) What JC endured was a bad weekend. And it didn't even kill him because he came back to life at the end of it. Also, crucifixion was not reserved for the worst offenders. It was reserved for slaves and subjegated people.