CrazyAnglican wrote:Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:First, I haven't heard of this archaeological discovery about the bone calcium and nails, and I am usually on top of this stuff (it's my field).
Second, from a biological standpoint, the "40 lashes kills a man" is pure lunacy. Different constitutions allow for different pain thresholds. Moreover, if he were nailed through the wrist (and to a lesser point, the feet), he would have severe hemorrhaging (which would probably kill him from a massive loss of blood. I mean, you add the crown of thorns, the lashings, and the hammering in the nails? That's too much blood to lose), and his wrists would most likely have fractured (leading his arms to dangle), or torn his arms from his sockets. Tests from the time period and area show that calcium deficiency was rampant, and only increases the likely-hood of his bones splitting.
I'm a little confused by your statements here. You are an expert in archaeology, or medicine? Is it your contention that Christ was not crucified, or merely that he wasn't crucified using nails?
I wouldn't define myself as an expert in Archaeology (I've only been in the field for about 5 years as opposed to a person with 20+ years of experience), but by the nature of the trade we need to know a bit about bone structures/make up and biology.
Moreover, by historical grounds, I don't believe Jesus even existed. The evidence is shaky, warped, and rife with inconsistencies. On biological grounds, I would dare say it is nigh impossible for him (or anyone for that matter) to have been crucified with nails.
By my nature as a skeptic and logician (as well as the application of modern historiographical standards), if we accept that the "nailing of his hands/feet" part was fudged a bit, it calls into credibility the rest of the book. If we looked at it totally objectively with this tiny piece of counter-evidence, we cannot accept it as a 100% reliable source for the possibility other passages may have been fudged or manipulated as well.
Furthermore, considering that no other contemporary works were written to supplant these claims (we'll skip that fact that the first Gospel was written nearly 30 years after Jesus's supposed death), we again have no way of discerning the myth from the fact. In short, the Gospels serve as unreliable sources for any actual historiographical claim regarding the life of the supposed "Yeshua el Nazrii".
I agree that different constitutions, and indeed different treatment beforehand, would allow for differences in the amount of time one hung on a cross before dying. A crucifixtion could less than an hour (ie. the victim was on death's door before being hung on the cross) or as long a four days (St. Andrew's crucifixtion reportedly lasted that long).
I don't know about particular executions, but I suppose it is possible. I am ready to admit that I don't know the particular nuances of the execution time.
As it stands Christ's crucifixtion lasted less than six hours. I think it was three, but I'm not certain and don't have a reference handy. You're right, the Romans did not typically nail people to the cross.
I don't quite believe he existed, so arguing this point is rather moot from a purely factual standpoint.
I have always hear that this was a special punishment for Christ.
Why only Christ?
Your statements about the lashings and use of nails seem to actually back up the fact that it was a relatively short crucifixtion.
Massive trauma to his body and all that blood loss would have put him into shock. Understanding modern human physiology, the man would have been dead before they even nailed him down. Short crucifixtion, indeed. It was over before it even started.
It had to be because Jewish law demanded that the crucifition be over before the Sabbath.
Riddle me this: Why would Jewish law be heeded in this case, but not on the Eve of Passover, when he was originally before the temple priests? A little inconsistency I always found troublesome.
But again, all of this is moot until some solid proof comes to life supporting the existence of Jesus.
But in reality, whether he was actually nailed to the cross or not has little to do with his sacrifice for those who believe in him.
In reality, we accept facts as facts and nothing else. If you want to talk about grounding yourself in reality, you'll need to toss the entire Bible.
