Hmm.... historical question with religious overtones... sorry

DavidC · #1 09-06-2005, 09:55 PM

I watched the Movie The Gospel of John, recently. I don't know how close the movie is to the book, or how close the book is to history, and that's not really the point.

The two dudes that were crucified next to Jesus were removed prior to the Sabbath that started the religious holiday in Jerusalem (I think?).

Prior to being removed, their legs were broken. Jesus' apparently weren't because he was found to be already dead.

So, my question is, why did the romans break the legs of the people removed from the crucifixes? Was it a form of punsishment?

Also, what happened to them after they were removed? Were they just jailed then put back up after the sabbath, or were they free?

Zygote · #2 09-06-2005, 09:59 PM

Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

DavidC · #3 09-06-2005, 10:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

HopeydaFish · #4 09-06-2005, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they were very wary of getting the Jews riled up. They appeased them as much they could to keep them from rebelling. There were numerous Jewish rebellions during the entire Roman occupation. Not having executions on the Sabbath would have been one of the concessions made to keep people happy.

Zygote · #5 09-07-2005, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they were very wary of getting the Jews riled up. They appeased them as much they could to keep them from rebelling. There were numerous Jewish rebellions during the entire Roman occupation. Not having executions on the Sabbath would have been one of the concessions made to keep people happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still makes no sense. Laws of the Sabbath do not apply to non-Jews and the Jews would have no reason to want the Romans to comply with laws of the Sabbath (at least regarding this specific example).

toddw8 · #6 09-07-2005, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the roman's actions have anything to do with the sabbath? you must have something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably a political advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they were very wary of getting the Jews riled up. They appeased them as much they could to keep them from rebelling. There were numerous Jewish rebellions during the entire Roman occupation. Not having executions on the Sabbath would have been one of the concessions made to keep people happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This still makes no sense. Laws of the Sabbath do not apply to non-Jews and the Jews would have no reason to want the Romans to comply with laws of the Sabbath (at least regarding this specific example).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Jews had to bury their dead, and would probably be pissed at the Romans if they were forced to do so on the sabbath.

bholdr · #7 09-06-2005, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So, my question is, why did the romans break the legs of the people removed from the crucifixes? Was it a form of punsishment?

Also, what happened to them after they were removed? Were they just jailed then put back up after the sabbath, or were they free?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have specific answers for you but;

I believe that people had their legs broken AS they were crucified- this makes it impossible for them to carry weight on their legs and makes the whole process one of slow suffocation- the idea being that they'd have to lift themselves up on broken legs and streched arms to breathe, until they were finally too exausted to do so, and died of suffocation. ugh.

Also, i don't know if this applies to this specific case, but generally, if a person survived three days on the cross, they were released. very very few made it three days.

DavidC · #8 09-06-2005, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, my question is, why did the romans break the legs of the people removed from the crucifixes? Was it a form of punsishment?

Also, what happened to them after they were removed? Were they just jailed then put back up after the sabbath, or were they free?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have specific answers for you but;

I believe that people had their legs broken AS they were crucified- this makes it impossible for them to carry weight on their legs and makes the whole process one of slow suffocation- the idea being that they'd have to lift themselves up on broken legs and streched arms to breathe, until they were finally too exausted to do so, and died of suffocation. ugh.

Also, i don't know if this applies to this specific case, but generally, if a person survived three days on the cross, they were released. very very few made it three days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that makes sense, although I can't really say I'm better for having heard it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Might it be possible thatthat the guys had their legs broken after a while of being on the cross, so that they would die, so that they could be taken down?

There was something mentioned in this movie, that he didn't get his legs broken. It was important, because in scriptures in the old testament I think it says somewhere that the mesiah will be killed without having any of his bones broken.

So I'm curious if they do this before or after you're on there...

What's their schedules? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Also, it might depend on what period in the roman empire this was.

Oh well.

But thank you very much for your information, here.

whiskeytown · #9 09-07-2005, 12:33 AM

it's definately your legs are broken before you die (or rather to speed up the dying process)

Cruxification is basically death by stranglation - when your body sags like that you can't breathe, so you use your legs/arms to hold yourself up so you can breathe - by breaking legs, they were guaranteed that those guys would die before the sabbath cause no one could hold themselves up for long with just their arms.

Jesus was already dead, so they stuck a spear in him to prove it instead of breaking his legs.

RB

MrWookie47 · #10 09-06-2005, 10:17 PM

The two theives had their legs broken because they were not yet dead. Breaking your femur will often sever a major artery running down your leg (gets cut on a jagged piece of bone), resulting in massive internal bleeding and inevitable death. The guys weren't supposed to stay up there on the Sabbath, so they had to be killed right away. Breaking their legs seemed like a reasonable means to an end, I suppose. Jesus, however, was already dead. They could take him down right away.