Crucifixion - how significant?

[brum]

This is an open question and in no way intended to offend.

If Jesus had not been killed by the Romans by crucifixion, but by, say, hanging, would that have affected how Christianity subsequently developed? There would not have been the symbol of the cross, for one thing, and his suffering would not have been so great. But his messages, faith and beliefs would not have changed.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Interesting question, one I've never thought of before.

Pretty significant, I'd say because of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, eg, Psalm 22; Isaiah 52/53; Psalm 69.

[Huguenot]

I don't think it's relevant at all.

Crucifixion was a pretty standard form of justice at the time. Spartacus and 6,000 of his mates got totalled on the Appian way in the same way. We don't worship them.

Jesus might have got bumped off by being run down by chariots - then there'd be wagon wheels everywhere.

It's a martyr myth. The ultimate sacrifice. We feel guilty be association. We subordinate ourselves as recompense.

It's like your mum saying 'Eat your greens, just think of all those starving ethiopians'.

[Brendan]

I think the image of the crucifixion was particularly important in the early Christian world. Crucifixion was a common method of execution and also one used by a colonising empire so it would have had all sorts of connotations to people at the time.

The crucifix was a strong/shocking image that made a profound statement for a religion whose tenets include freedom from the oppression of this life through redemption in an afterlife all brought about by the martyrdom of one individual.

Not sure what the native people of the new world and Africa must have thought when they encountered these people who carried the image of a dead man on a tree around with them and prayed to in their temples.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Gutted. Wagonwheels are much nicer than chocolate crosses.

[Brendan]

I prefer macaroons but it?s a bit of a push to expect Jesus to have been stoned to death with coconuts. Or should that be ?coconutted? to death? Or just nutted? Jesus was by all accounts a hippy though so stoned may be more apt.

Actually up until the arrival of the Romans biblical folk seemed to prefer stoning as their preferred method of killing people. Perhaps there is even further significance in the crucifix in that it was a form of punishment imposed by the Romans when the proper local way to do it was to pelt people with coconuts.

Or am I reading too much into things?

[Huguenot]

This 'Pear of Anguish' would make an attractive religious keepsake and also a nasty way to go.

I'll leave it to your imagination to guess how it works...

http://mightybroke.com/mightypix/pearanguish02iv7.gif

[Brendan]

Well it could all have been a cover-up for the fact that Our Lord actually died in a freak accident involving a split cane basket a jar of goats butter and a brace of Samaritans.

[HAL9000]

There's virtually no evidence of a cross or crucifix serving as religious symbols until the beginning of the third century AD. Indeed, the earliest Christians appear to have nurtured a secret fish fetish.

[Keef]

Part of the reason for that could be that they would have been killed for advertising that they were christian.

Just because it took them a while to use it, doesn't mean that it had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. In fact, 300 years would have given them plenty of time to have "created the legend" so to speak, then the cross symbol would have been more powerful.

I think this is an interesting idea for a thread, had never considered it before.

[legalbeagle]

I think that some of this depends on how you view the entirety of the time that Jesus spent alive. If you believe he is the son of God, sent to earth to help us to turn to God, and that he died for your sins, and rose again from the dead, then the method by which he died isn't important. You can still believe those things regardless of the method of death.

What is seems to represent to believers is the extent to which he was prepared to suffer, and therefore the extent to which he loved us and wanted to save us. Would the Christian religion have taken off to such an extent without that "proof" of love?

[brum]

I still have an open mind on this one.

Maybe the symbol of the cross could so easily have been a fish symbol, or a waggonwheel (mmmm, chocolate...) and the Christian message would have still flourished. However, would this have meant that the subsequent development of the faith is different? So much emphasis is placed on the crucifixion in the christian doctrine, including the way LB describes. Would we all be worshipping in front of a fish symbol, in the way we do the cross? What other changes would there have been?

[Brendan]

If we worshiped in front of a fish would it mean we had to eat a crucified man on Fridays?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

A cross is just a symbol - it is not worshipped, that would be idolatory. It's a way to recognise Xians easily just as a fish still is today.

Leaglebeagle, if you were to give up your child to save someone else I suspect it wouldn't matter as to the method of execution, the pain and grief would be intolerable for you. It's not in the amount of suffering physically so much as the separation from God that is amazing, it's just easier for us mere mortals to focus on something tangible.

[legalbeagle]

PCG I'm sure that you are right. There can be few experiences worse than that of losing a child, under any circumstances. It is (if that is what you believe happened) an amazing, if not almost incomprehensible thing for a parent to do. My point is just that the horror with which it happened must help some people to see just what lengths God went to for them. But I also said, and still think, that actually the method of death should not affect the fundamental parts of the Christian faith, so I think we are probably agreeing.

As to the question of how the faith would have developed without that symbol, I'm not sure it would have been the same. I think that human beings need a sense of the dramatic to really be able to believe wholeheartedly in something that cannot otherwise be easily proved.

Are there any stories of other gods that aren't dramatic and yet inspire mass loyalty? I'd be interested to hear them if anyone can think of one?

[HAL9000]

The Koran is remarkably tame in comparison to the Gospels and the Torah - no epic dramas or miracles or a passion play: very poetic with a calm sense of authority. Seems to have done the trick, though.

[legalbeagle]

True. But the Koran makes it clear that church and state are indivisible. A common interpretation of it (though there are others) is that it is a Muslem's duty to ensure that the country in which he lives obeys the rules of Islam. He must use all reasonable efforts to convert the country to that way of life, and if he has tried everything else, and there is no other way, and subject to very strict rules of conduct, he may conduct a war to achieve that end. So that deals with the issue of how to motivate an entire population other than by the dramatic actions of a god - you give the ability to take dramatic action to the population instead. So not all calm serenity.

Also don't forget that whilst the Koran is the definitive holy text for Muslems, in common with Jews and Christians, they actually believe in the same "historical" religious past. In short, the Jews believe in the first five books of the Old Testament, which is their holy script (the Torah) as do Christians and Muslems. Then Christians also believe in the rest of the bible, as do Muslems, apart from the bit about Jesus, who they believe to have been a prophet, rather than the son of God. And then Mulems alone believe the final prophet was Mohammed, who wrote down the Koran as dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel. so although those three faiths seem in constant conflict, they in fact have a very close history.

Given this, and that the Old Testament God is pretty vengeful to say the least, I'm not sure that Muslem history is without the dramatic.

That said HAL, I agree that the Koran is a beautifully written text.

[Huguenot]

I can see PGC's point, but it doesn't work in practice.

If God was omniscient and omnipresent, not only would he have seen it coming, but he'd probably observe 'Here we go again'.

Besides, if God gave up a child to save someone else he'd probably be chock full of smug middle class martyrdom.

[RosieH]

Huguenot, and you felt you had to make a point of being illiberal on another thread?!

I don't think it had to be crucifixion - and therefore it didn't need the cross - as PGC pointed out, the fish is a symbol of Christianity that is still commonly used today (although crosses are considerably easier from an architectural point of view than fish).

The emphasis on the crucifixion seems to me to be two-fold: 1) it was a spectacularly brutal, public and humiliating form of execution and therefore shows the degree to which Christ is told to have suffered for us, but also the emphasis on Christ's death is crucial as it leads to the resurrection - the most important part of the Christian story of Christ.

It's many many years since I studied RS GCSE, but I seem to recall that Christ's time on the cross was around 6 hours, but that typically death by crucifixion took considerably longer than that. Which might, or might not, suggest that the excruciating slow tortuous method of death was less important than the simple fact of his death.

[Huguenot]

Ooops, sorry, that came across wrong!

I wasn't having a pop at PGC, I was making a joke about the personification of God as a self-righteous transgender Hyacinth Bucket. He did after all know that His Son was on the rack and let him die anyway so that He'd get worshipped all the more...

The original 'you' was a hypothetical. In Price Charlie's parlance would be 'one', as in.. "If one was an omnisicient omnipotent superbeing who... etc. etc."

[legalbeagle]

RosieH - you are right, usually people who were crucufied were tied to a cross, perched on a small seat. That meant the weight of their body was taken mostly on their arms/chest muscles, so that they eventually had a heart attack. The point of the small seat was that not all of the weight was taken that way so that the heart attack took longer to happen. But because it wasn't a very scientific method, some people would probably die of heat exhaustion/dehydration instead. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and Saturday was the traditional day of rest. So he had his legs broken after he had been on the cross for a while to bring the death about more quickly, and then he was speared through the side to make sure he was dead before sun down on Friday night. So, bizarre though this sounds, he suffered less, or perhaps differently, than others who were crucified, in that he probably died more quickly.

[HAL9000]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... so that they eventually had a heart attack.

The usual COD was asphyxiation.

> Jesus ... had his legs broken after he had been on

> the cross for a while to bring the death about

"But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled [Psalm 34:20 & Num. 9:12], A bone of him shall not be broken." - John 19: 33-36

[legalbeagle]

Well I take your point HAL but there are varying beliefs about the cause of death on the cross, (and indeed whether he died at all) and the gospels are far from historically accurate! But I fear we stray from the point......

[Narnia]

This of course assumes that he didn't survive nor go to India where he lived till a ripe old age,as some people believe.

[HAL9000]

During the first two centuries of Christianity the Basilidans taught: "It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus assumed Simon's and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to His Father."

This heresy is often cited by Muslim scholars as the source if Islam's position on Jesus? crucifixion.