Would Christ have died from the scourging?

[monavis]

@JThunder

The fallacy I’m referring to is the notion that the Jews would have treated Jesus in the same manner that they would have treated any other self-professed Messiah. It simply does not follow. (This is assuming, for the sake of argument, that there WAS a long list of “self-professed Messiahs” at the time. For reasons that have already been discussed, I think that’s a tenuous claim at best.)

Moreover, as Stratocaster and Chronos pointed out, Jesus did not merely claim to be the Messiah. He also claimed divinity, which sets him apart from the other (alleged!) “Messiahs.” This would have given the Jewish mob yet another incentive to demand his death (see Mark 14:60-64, as cited by Chronos).

As I see it,Jesus saw divinity in all humans and didn’t just mean himself. He referred to Psalm 82(81 in Douay version) He said" why do you say I blaspheme when I call God my Father as you father’s did"? He also referred to your father and mine. I know some say we are children by adoption but Jesus never suggested such a thing.

Monavis

[FriarTed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Not only that but Jesus had said or done nothing heretical or illegal or even remarkable under Jewish law…

“Before Abraham was, I am.”

[FriarTed]

Re the Three Days controversy- I don’t know who first questioned the Good Friday tradition but some fundist writers in the last century raising the “three days & three nights” issue, proposing an alternate view that JC was crucified & died on Wed afternoon, spent Wed night, Thurs day & night, Friday day & night, Saturday day dead & buried, and rose soon after Sunset on Saturday- aparently just biding his time till the Women showed up near dawn on Sunday. The Armstrongist churches are the most vocal proponents of this, but I can only trace it as far as Ethelbert Bullinger’s The Companion Bible. The 'Sabbath" which followed the Crucifixion day is explained as a special Festival Sabbath (the first day of the weeklong Feast of Unleavened Bread"). not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath.

[YaWanna]

@Stratocaster

You must have different Mark gospel than I do. Jesus appears to all 11 in mine.

That would be in Mark 16:14; where Diogenes here to respond, he would tell you that everything after Mark 16:8 is considered to have been added to the text at a later date (they are not included in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).

[YaWanna]

@FriarTed

“Before Abraham was, I am.”

John 8:58

I was preparing to ask for Diogenes’ response to this, too. I’ll check back on Monday.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’ve got a little time on my brother-inlaw’s computer.

Like YaWanna said, the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8. The appearance narrative now present in some versions of the book is a later addition and is not found in the earliest manuscripts. The emended endings actually include two different versions – a short version and a long version.

More from Wikepedia:

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark’s Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies’ 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as “certain.” For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. Nevertheless, a handful of scholars, particularly those in traditionalist or fundamentalist traditions, argue that the evidence is insufficient to justify its exclusion or that the evidence in fact supports its inclusion. However, in biblical scholarship, changes and advances due to creative detective work and new discoveries have a long past history of proceeding with caution very slowly, so the almost unanimous conclusion with regards to the inauthenticity of the ending(s) of Mark should be seriously considered.

@Friar Ted

“Before Abraham was, I am.”

That’s in John. It’s not in the Gospel of Mark, so it’s irrelevant to Mark’s trial and convction for blasphemy. Also. mark has the High Priest say, “you have heard the blasphemy,” so the blasphemy had to have been something Jesus said to the Sanhedrin, not something which was attributed to him in another Gospel (and another context) 30 years after Mark was written.

[JRDelirious]

It could also be, that Mark is trying to paint the Sanhedrin badly by having them blatantly fabricating a** bogus ** attainder of blasphemy against Jesus, in order to wash their own hands about letting the Romans at him. But really, look, Mark’s followers who wrote his gospel down weren’t there in the hall; Mark wasn’t there; even Mark’s alleged source, PETER wasn’t there either, but lying low and denying any involvement; all they had was hearsay.

My suspicion is that once JC was turned in to the Romans, some local Jewish Roman-collaborators stood around making the appropriate anti-Jesus noises to make a show of being on Rome’s good side. Maybe even brought along a small rent-a-mob. And Pilatus was more like annoyed that they were wasting his time with yet another rabble-rouser. By the time you get to writing it down 30+ years later, the whole scenario has gained howling mobs in the streets, Sanhedrin trials, a hesitant Pilatus, nasty references to “the Jews”, etc. .

Getting back to the OP (hopeless, sure, but why not) yeah, depending on the nature of the scourging it could put you on death’s door. As mentioned, it was considered worthy of remarking that he was dead by mid-afternoon when it was expected it would take overnight.

One thing that is often overlooked about the whole Passion scenario is that for many theologians what is to be considered remarkable about the Christ’s form of martyrdom is NOT that it were so painful, but that it was such a* vulgar, low-class* method of punishment, and thus the bigger the contrast to the majesty of a Divine Savior.
As to the three days, indeed most readings of the passages come across as “he shall rise on the third day” (Friday, first; Saturday, second; Sunday, third), NOT “he shall rise after 3 whole days have elapsed”. (And if your leader is rising from the dead, does it really matter if he waited > or < 72 hrs???)