Crucifixion question

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, the currency in question is more an issue of how many times you shake your pecker one too many times.....but, ostensibly, crucifixion must be worth a whole hell of alot of onanism compared to getting run over by a cart.  

I suppose they could have added that, though.  Run him over, back it up, run him over again.  If they were being super cautious about all the potential liability of future sin they'd have tortured him every which way and then killed him twice.

[Succubus]

I am the first to admit that I am no expert on this subject, but I have always wondered about one aspect of Crucifixion.

As I understand it, the criminal was made to carry his own cross up the hill before being crucified. When the Roman soldier said to the victim "I want you to carry this heavy cross up the hill so we can nail you onto it and leave you hanging until you die" What would stop him saying the Aramaic equivalent of "Piss off, carry it yourself!"
What could they do that was worse than Crucifixion?

(This is nothing to do with the religious aspects of the story, just a practical question)

They would go after a relative or friend beat them and make them carry your cross. if they gave any crap they would be crucified as well.

Let me shoulder your burden, brother.

Oh, thank you.

Uh. H-- hey! 

What d'you think you're doing?

Um, it's not my cross. I was, ah, holding it for someone. Um--

We've had a busy day. There's a hundred and forty of you lot to get up.

Uh, will you let me down if he comes back?

[Drich]

They would go after a relative or friend beat them and make them carry your cross. if they gave any crap they would be crucified as well.

Let me shoulder your burden, brother.

Oh, thank you.

Uh. H-- hey! 

What d'you think you're doing?

Um, it's not my cross. I was, ah, holding it for someone. Um--

We've had a busy day. There's a hundred and forty of you lot to get up.

Uh, will you let me down if he comes back?

or...

matt 27:32 The soldiers were going out of the city with Jesus. They saw a man from Cyrene named Simon, and they forced him to carry Jesus’ cross.33 They came to the place called Golgotha. 

[Lemon Curry]

Let me shoulder your burden, brother.

Oh, thank you.

Uh. H-- hey! 

What d'you think you're doing?

Um, it's not my cross. I was, ah, holding it for someone. Um--

We've had a busy day. There's a hundred and forty of you lot to get up.

Uh, will you let me down if he comes back?

or...

matt 27:32 The soldiers were going out of the city with Jesus. They saw a man from Cyrene named Simon, and they forced him to carry Jesus’ cross.33 They came to the place called Golgotha. 

Yeh, that's the assertion.  Where's the proof?

This should be good.

[Drich]

or...

matt 27:32 The soldiers were going out of the city with Jesus. They saw a man from Cyrene named Simon, and they forced him to carry Jesus’ cross.33 They came to the place called Golgotha. 

Yeh, that's the assertion.  Where's the proof?

This should be good.

Sorry sport that is a quotation not an assertion.

Assertion:
Dictionary
as·ser·tion
/əˈsərSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
   

here is the defination of quotation:
quo·ta·tion
/ˌkwōˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.
   

Now, since I quoted mat 27, mat 27 becomes the source material, therefore in of itself is indeed proof of the statement I quoted. such as: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

do you understand? I am saying the proof of my quote can be determined by whether or not mat 27 say what I posted. Now if you seek verification to what mat 27 states that is another matter. but this one is closed.

I corrected you misidentification of assertion, by correctly identifying a quote and then provided proof the quote was quoted accurate.

That said if you want verification of this event then just make a request.

[Lemon Curry]

Yeh, that's the assertion.  Where's the proof?

This should be good.

Sorry sport that is a quotation not an assertion.

Assertion:
Dictionary
as·ser·tion
/əˈsərSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
   

here is the defination of quotation:
quo·ta·tion
/ˌkwōˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.
   

Now, since I quoted mat 27, mat 27 becomes the source material, therefore in of itself is indeed proof of the statement I quoted. such as: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV

do you understand? I am saying the proof of my quote can be determined by whether or not mat 27 say what I posted. Now if you seek verification to what mat 27 states that is another matter. but this one is closed.

I corrected you misidentification of assertion, by correctly identifying a quote and then provided proof the quote was quoted accurate.

That said if you want verification of this event then just make a request.

The babble is an assertion.  It makes statements of belief.  It contains no proof: the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists. 2 : the establishment or persuasion by evidence that a particular fact exists. So, christard, once again, we have heard the assertions, where's the proof?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jesus was in pain all afternoon, then was dead for about 36 hours, then was the king of creation. BFD

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes, it would.  He had to suffer, in effect, be tortured.  This effected his sacrificial value with regards to vicarious redemption.

The token that endures more pain, pays for more pain.

I get that, but death by clubbing or oxcart doesn't necessarily have to be instant or painless.  People get run down by cars and linger for days.

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

"Crucifixion was most often performed to dissuade its witnesses from perpetrating similar (usually particularly heinous) crimes. Victims were sometimes left on display after death as a warning to any other potential criminals. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally "out of crucifying"), gruesome, humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period.

The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14]

In some cases, the condemned was forced to carry the crossbeam to the place of execution.[15] A whole cross would weigh well over 135 kg (300 lb), but the crossbeam would not be as burdensome, weighing around 45 kg (100 lb).[16] The Roman historian Tacitus records that the city of Rome had a specific place for carrying out executions, situated outside the Esquiline Gate,[17] and had a specific area reserved for the execution of slaves by crucifixion.[18] Upright posts would presumably be fixed permanently in that place, and the crossbeam, with the condemned person perhaps already nailed to it, would then be attached to the post.

The person executed may have been attached to the cross by rope, though nails and other sharp materials are mentioned in a passage by the Judean historian Josephus, where he states that at the Siege of Jerusalem (70), "the soldiers out of rage and hatred, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest".[19] Objects used in the crucifixion of criminals, such as nails, were sought as amulets with perceived medicinal qualities.[20]

While a crucifixion was an execution, it was also a humiliation, by making the condemned as vulnerable as possible. Although artists have traditionally depicted the figure on a cross with a loin cloth or a covering of the genitals, the person being crucified was usually stripped naked. Writings by Seneca the Younger state some victims suffered a stick forced upwards through their groin.[21][22] Despite its frequent use by the Romans, the horrors of crucifixion did not escape criticism by some eminent Roman orators. Cicero, for example, described crucifixion as "a most cruel and disgusting punishment",[23] and suggested that "the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen's body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears".[24] Elsewhere he says, "It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen; to scourge him is a wickedness; to put him to death is almost parricide. What shall I say of crucifying him? So guilty an action cannot by any possibility be adequately expressed by any name bad enough for it."[25]

Frequently, the legs of the person executed were broken or shattered with an iron club, an act called crurifragium, which was also frequently applied without crucifixion to slaves.[26] This act hastened the death of the person but was also meant to deter those who observed the crucifixion from committing offenses."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

---

[quote pid='1900670' dateline='1555337523']
You may use Shekels or may convert to any currency of today.

[/quote]
Do you know the address of any good money-changer ?
I have too many jars of shekels.

---

[quote pid='1900690' dateline='1555341024']

Sorry sport that is a quotation not an assertion.

Assertion:
Dictionary
as·ser·tion
/əˈsərSH(ə)n/
noun

Quoting a mythological text, or a text that is nothing more that a statement of belief may be an assertion, but it's of no more truth value than quoting any other myth.
The average life-time at the turn of the millennium was 30 years. Two lifetimes later, a writer would have no clue what had actually happened, if indeed anything happened. The concept of "proceeding through" a "passion" to achieve forgiveness was a typical meme of the age, and was used for a number of savior-gods, in a number of the cults which sprung up at the time.. It was not at all unique to the Jesus figure. No Galilean peasants were ever brought in front of Roman aristocrats or afforded a trial. They were simply executed, by "standing order" during the Pax Romana. If indeed he had caused a ruckus in the temple, that's all that would have been needed to grab him, and execute him. One of the gospels said he was silent, (to meet the "lamb before the slaughter" idea), in another, (John), he gives a long-winded speech full of highly developed theological concepts (which of course, took the Christian Church decades, if not centuries to develop), and with every one of those it becomes more obvious that the concepts would not have and could not have been spoken by a Jesus person early in the 1st Century. And then of course, John is full of per-gnostic and gnostic ideas which are so similar to Philo's gnosticism, (50 CE) that Philo may as well have written John himself. The long speech that Jesus gives in John at the "Last Supper", (but with no institution of the Eucharist ??) is a Christian sermon given to an already long extant Christian Church, and not the speech of someone from before it even existed.

[Lemon Curry]

"Crucifixion was most often performed to dissuade its witnesses from perpetrating similar (usually particularly heinous) crimes. Victims were sometimes left on display after death as a warning to any other potential criminals. Crucifixion was usually intended to provide a death that was particularly slow, painful (hence the term excruciating, literally "out of crucifying"), gruesome, humiliating, and public, using whatever means were most expedient for that goal. Crucifixion methods varied considerably with location and time period.

The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14]

In some cases, the condemned was forced to carry the crossbeam to the place of execution.[15] A whole cross would weigh well over 135 kg (300 lb), but the crossbeam would not be as burdensome, weighing around 45 kg (100 lb).[16] The Roman historian Tacitus records that the city of Rome had a specific place for carrying out executions, situated outside the Esquiline Gate,[17] and had a specific area reserved for the execution of slaves by crucifixion.[18] Upright posts would presumably be fixed permanently in that place, and the crossbeam, with the condemned person perhaps already nailed to it, would then be attached to the post.

The person executed may have been attached to the cross by rope, though nails and other sharp materials are mentioned in a passage by the Judean historian Josephus, where he states that at the Siege of Jerusalem (70), "the soldiers out of rage and hatred, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest".[19] Objects used in the crucifixion of criminals, such as nails, were sought as amulets with perceived medicinal qualities.[20]

While a crucifixion was an execution, it was also a humiliation, by making the condemned as vulnerable as possible. Although artists have traditionally depicted the figure on a cross with a loin cloth or a covering of the genitals, the person being crucified was usually stripped naked. Writings by Seneca the Younger state some victims suffered a stick forced upwards through their groin.[21][22] Despite its frequent use by the Romans, the horrors of crucifixion did not escape criticism by some eminent Roman orators. Cicero, for example, described crucifixion as "a most cruel and disgusting punishment",[23] and suggested that "the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen's body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears".[24] Elsewhere he says, "It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen; to scourge him is a wickedness; to put him to death is almost parricide. What shall I say of crucifying him? So guilty an action cannot by any possibility be adequately expressed by any name bad enough for it."[25]

Frequently, the legs of the person executed were broken or shattered with an iron club, an act called crurifragium, which was also frequently applied without crucifixion to slaves.[26] This act hastened the death of the person but was also meant to deter those who observed the crucifixion from committing offenses."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

---

[quote pid='1900670' dateline='1555337523']
You may use Shekels or may convert to any currency of today.

Do you know the address of any good money-changer ?
I have too many jars of shekels.

---

[quote pid='1900690' dateline='1555341024']

Sorry sport that is a quotation not an assertion.

Assertion:
Dictionary
as·ser·tion
/əˈsərSH(ə)n/
noun

Quoting a mythological text, or a text that is nothing more that a statement of belief may be an assertion, but it's of no more truth value than quoting any other myth.
The average life-time at the turn of the millennium was 30 years. Two lifetimes later, a writer would have no clue what had actually happened, if indeed anything happened. The concept of "proceeding through" a "passion" to achieve forgiveness was a typical meme of the age, and was used for a number of savior-gods, in a number of the cults which sprung up at the time.. It was not at all unique to the Jesus figure. No Galilean peasants were ever brought in front of Roman aristocrats or afforded a trial. They were simply executed, by "standing order" during the Pax Romana. If indeed he had caused a ruckus in the temple, that's all that would have been needed to grab him, and execute him. One of the gospels said he was silent, (to meet the "lamb before the slaughter" idea), in another, (John), he gives a long-winded speech full of highly developed theological concepts (which of course, took the Christian Church decades, if not centuries to develop), and with every one of those it becomes more obvious that the concepts would not have and could not have been spoken by a Jesus person early in the 1st Century. And then of course, John is full of per-gnostic and gnostic ideas which are so similar to Philo's gnosticism, (50 CE) that Philo may as well have written John himself. The long speech that Jesus gives in John at the "Last Supper", (but with no institution of the Eucharist ??) is a Christian sermon given to an already long extant Christian Church, and not the speech of someone from before it even existed.
[/quote]

[/quote]