A friend of mine asked if Jesus was supposed to endure the ultimate suffering for our sins, then why did he not live to be in his 80’s- with varicose ulcers and incontinence and all the other maladies that come along with being old- and THEN volutarily get crucified?
Wouldn’t he have suffered a lot more that way?
Also, if there were others who got crucified as well in those days, than what really made Jesus’s suffering so much more terrible?
I have to admit I have no idea.
As for why he died at 33 instead of 88, all I can think of is that nobody ever listens to 88-year old sickly men raving revolutionary ideas about God, so his teachings may have not had the impact of one in his prime.
I point you to Thessellosians II 12:44-47, Romans 1,037:1-i, Babe-alonians 26:36:26, Nostradomaus’ 18th quatraine, and my dear Aunt Selma for irrefutable proof to support my claims. And if you don’t agree, you’re just wrong.
(At least, that’s the answer I suspect you might get.)
Three quick thoughts: (caveat - not a believer, but a respectful atheist)
The import of the JC story is that he died for humanity’s sins, not so much how he died;
To be cut down in the prime of life has greater resonance than to die after a good, long life; and
I don’t think anyone asserts JC physically suffered more than anyone else, or even that he was trying to. After all, he died after only three hours on the cross, while historical records indiacte that crucifixion victims often suffered for literally days before dying.
While not denigrating at all the physical suffering my Xian friends believe JC suffered (and actually believing it myself, as a believer in the historical JC), I always thought the true import of the crucifixion was the spiritual/emotional agony of JC. Here he is, the son of G-d, come down to earth to teach the true love of G-d, and he is rejected and condemned by the very people he is trying to help. Even if this was part of his plan, it was obviously (as shown by the Agony in the Garden) unbelievably painful to him.
Sua
One other point (not that it is really relevant, but what the heck) is that 2000 years ago, 33 years was a pretty respectable span for a life. Octogenarians were few and far between.
Jack, I don’t think that’s particularly true. If average lifespans were lower, it’s because there was a higher rate of infant mortality, but I doubt that their age distribution was terribly different from ours. There were probably as many gray-bearded oldsters, proportionately, as there are now.
Anyhow, I want to know why Jesus is so often portrayed as some weak-looking wastrel? The dude probably spent his entire adolescence working under his dad as a carpenter, before power tools. He was most likely pretty buff, man.
Don’t be so sure. Moses had some pretty revolutionary ideas that he demonstrated to Pharoah when he was 80. Abraham started when he was 52, and was still going strong when he turned 100 and Isaac was born.
I’m not pretending to be an expert on this, but I would tend to disagree with you. One reason we do have so many “oldsters” roaming around these days, is modern medicine. Another, I would venture to say, would be a more structured code of laws. There was an awful lot of smiting back then.
Anyway, if I get up the motivation, I’ll do a little research to the why’s and wherefore’s on life-span 2000 years ago, but I think my arguments might just hold a little water.
Well, sure, but again, that has as least as much of an effect on infant mortality as it does on prolonged life. If the infant mortality rate is high (as it undoubtedly was), that skews average lifespan figures towards the lower end of the scale. That doesn’t, however, mean that the average man was dropping dead at 40, or 45, or that living to 60 or 70 was considered some outrageous feat like living to 110 today. It means that a disproportionate number of people died prior to, say, their fifth birthday.
I would venture to guess that the Hebrew legal code 2,000 years ago was among the most structured and specific of its era. As, for that matter, was Roman law.
You’re right about the physical torture. Has anyone here ever did an in-depth study of how crucifixions were done?
I did once in preparation for a sermon and it DEEPLY moved me. But you’re wrong on one account though (at least according to the bible). Jesus actually lasted (according to Mark 15) six hours not three hours.
Mark 15:25 It was the third hour when they crucified him.
Mark 15:33-34 At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land util the ninth hour. And at the Ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani?–which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
Skipping down to 37: "With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
So TECHNICALLY Jesus lasted from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Some of the ancient gnostics believed that Jesus did indeed live into old age. There’s an epistle written by a well-known gnostic teacher circa 200 C.E. which argues that Jesus lived into his fifties, which was considered old age in those days.
The orthodox Christian views (Trinity, etc.) generally also teach that at this point, Christ experienced a real spiritual separation from the Father. While Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, sometimes people forget that our sins were imputed to his account so they could be payed for. While I’m not to clear on all the details of the situation (the Trinity and Jesus being God and Man at the same time stuff can be confusing), one could objectively reckon that it would suck.
I may be mistaken on this as well, but it seems that Jesus was treated a tad worse than your typical crucifee. They considered him to be worse than a murderer, so they probably treated him as such.
And hey, if you don’t think he suffered physically, I suggest you cram a crown of thorns onto your brow and get whiped 39 times. Even if he didn’t suffer more than the other criminals, no person in his right mind would wish that on himself. I’d take incontinence and a broken hip over that any day.
As I said, I’m no expert on any of this, so I’ll take your word for it. But let me try to explain my thoughts.
First of all, I understand what you’re saying about infant mortality rate affecting average life-span, but conversely, elderly people not being treated as they are today had to contribute to some truncated life-spans as well. I look at it like a curve - Lots of infant deaths - if you make it past that and you stay healthy your cool - until you start to age and the know-how just doesn’t exist to prolong your life or quell your frailties, etc.
As for Hebrew legal code and Roman Law being well structured, I don’t doubt it. But how well could it have been enforced? Of this I admit I am totally ignorant. But I have this vision of a lot of rural/desolate areas 2000 years ago, where people did live and codes and laws didn’t mean squat to them. Also, please correct me if I’m totally off-base, but weren’t many of these codes and laws skewed specifically towards capital punishment? Wouldn’t this have had some effect on average life spans as well? I mean you just don’t see that many mass crucifixions these days.
Finally, I’m not really arguing with anything you’re saying, for as I’ve said (and I think it bears repeating) I am nothing near an expert on any of this, I’m just going on my gut. I’m not afraid of being educated.
I think 33 would have been considered dying young during the First Century AD, but I doubt that there were proportionately as many people alive in their 60s-70s-80s then as now.
Even in medieval times, living into your 60s was quite a feat.
Nooooo… What i meant was "Why did he not suffer the broken hip and incontinence ** in addition ** to being whipped and poked in the forehead with thorns.
I never said he didn’t suffer, the question was why did he not suffer MORE?
Guess what i did?
I called a couple of churches in Texas about this question. I was hoping to talk to a priest, but all I got were church secretaries.
One offered to talk to the pastor and get back to me, another person answered in a simple, annoying way
“Because God planned it that way…”
Thank you guys, for the relevant points and not answering in such an ignorant fashion.
The answer I would offer, then, has already been mentioned in this thread. The emphasis is not on the physical element, but rather the spiritual one. This isn’t really what I’d like to hash out, though.
I’d suggest calling a seminary, college, or maybe going out and buying a book. Most Christians are clueless when it comes to their religion. Calling a church is a bad idea, because usually
[list=1]
[li]The secretary knows how to type, but not how to think for herself[/li][li]The pastor, or whoever could answer your question, is at a hospital or shut in’s house doing stuff besides answering the questions of honest and curious heathens.[/li][/list=1]
I’m sorry they weren’t better prepared to answer you. That’s why we have SDMB, I guess.