The higher goal of the crucifixion

[Frank Petrexa]

This is what I've just posted in the 'nailing feet' thread:

Well, if they were hanging limp, and/or struggling and 'dancing',
I think they'd pretty soon be fighting for breath, finding it painful to breathe, never mind speak.
There's debate (here and in books, websites etc.) as to whether death would have been caused by asphyxiation,
the lungs simply giving up - but the chest muscles would be under enormous strain.
On the other hand, if the feet and/or groin were supported, the strain would be less,
and the condemned ones might have been able to take in what was going on,
speak, even shout to each other - as of course happens in the biblical accounts.

None of them say anything in Mark.
But you are right that they probably could talk, because the Gospels were written early enough that readers would know if the scene wasn't realistic--unlike the Resurrection, this scene was public and had a well known theme. Whether complete sentences and grandiloquent statements were likely is another question. But I did read once that at Waterloo, Sir Arthur Wesley, Duke of Wellington, was watching the action from high ground and sent a grammatically correct missive with complete sentences to a subordinate warning of impending catastrophe if the guy didn't make some adjustments right away. So, some people can apparently keep their cool under strenuous circumstances, so maybe Jesus could too.

 

[Frank Petrexa]

That statement is the very definition of why men should never try to think what is going on inside their mind. Those that do are fools. You have to take each woman one at a time. Besides, it is more fun in trying to figure out what each woman likes. It allows you to play with them more till you find what they enjoy

I can't avoid thinking of the quote from a 17th century Lord Chesterfield as related in the book "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation" (a biology book in disguise).
"The pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable."
One big argument for evolution is that biology never seems to come up with optimal solutions.

 

[willowfall]

I think some of it would also depend on the position of the victim on the cross. Arms over the top put a huge strain on your shoulders but very little on your chest.

According to the book on torture I have read the secret to keeping the victim alive was to limit blood loss. So if you brutally scourge someone, then nail them and then stab them I'd guess they are going to die a lot faster than someone who hadn't been tortured and was just tied.

Dying of dehydration takes 5-7 days depending on the condition of the victim. Starving to death takes longer.

So imagine a victim in decent shape, given support with a sedile, watered but not fed would take a long long time to die.

And there are accounts of hanging victims taking many minutes to die from strangulation.

I suppose with practice and the right techniques (say red hot nails to cauterize the wounds) you could keep a victim on the cross for days on end.

kisses

willowfall

 

[phlebas]

On the contrary, the Church has long encouraged the faithful - especially impressionable youngsters - to imagine for themselves the pains Jesus suffered on the cross, as well as the torments of Hell, the agonies of the martyrs etc. An interesting notion, I can see it being taken up with enthusiasm!


I've never really understood what I've got to be ashamed of down there anyway

There is a radio station here in Sydney owned by the Catholic Church, it was at one point in the 70s Sydney's number one radio station, so not just a vehicle of religious propaganda, it has music and news the same as any other main stream station - FM finally knocked them off their perch. But they did have some interesting shows late at night, and when Pope Paul VI died they played religious music all day (instead of top 40 - must have been a shock to some!)
Anywho, as a child I used to go to sleep listening to the radio, and on Sunday nights they had a show all about the suffering of various martyrs. It was surprisingly gruesome at times!

Eul, I'm sure you've got nothing to be ashamed of "down there". But just to be sure, you'd better send me some pics to appraise. Purely for your own peace of mind, of course.

 

[Eulalia]

Sir Arthur Wesley, Duke of Wellington, was watching the action from high ground and sent a grammatically correct missive with complete sentences to a subordinate warning of impending catastrophe if the guy didn't make some adjustments right away.

Wellington would certainly have made strategic use of subordinate clauses!

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

So, some people can apparently keep their cool under strenuous circumstances, so maybe Jesus could too.

More of the same. At Waterloo, he was standing beside Lord Uxbridge when a cannonball took off Uxbridge's leg. Both men reacted incredibly!
Uxbridge: By God, sir, I've lost my leg!
Wellington: By God, sir, so you have!

 

[woodflesh]

I think some of it would also depend on the position of the victim on the cross. Arms over the top put a huge strain on your shoulders but very little on your chest.

According to the book on torture I have read the secret to keeping the victim alive was to limit blood loss. So if you brutally scourge someone, then nail them and then stab them I'd guess they are going to die a lot faster than someone who hadn't been tortured and was just tied.

Dying of dehydration takes 5-7 days depending on the condition of the victim. Starving to death takes longer.

So imagine a victim in decent shape, given support with a sedile, watered but not fed would take a long long time to die.

And there are accounts of hanging victims taking many minutes to die from strangulation.

I suppose with practice and the right techniques (say red hot nails to cauterize the wounds) you could keep a victim on the cross for days on end.

kisses
B
willowfall

What do you think? How long is it possible to live only hanging by nails through wrists and feet without any other support??

 

[willowfall]

What do you think? How long is it possible to live only hanging by nails through wrists and feet without any other support??

Too many variables to predict.

Let's say I had been raped, tortured and starved. That would all take a toll on me and depending on the damage I could be near death before the first nail was driven.

If the nail opens an artery or vein I could bleed to death very quickly.

If it was brutally hot out, dehydration would set in more quickly. Extremely cold I could freeze to death.

My suspicion is that the act of crucifying someone, no matter how long they lasted, would be agonizing and painful. The longer they lasted the more the "lesson" could be drawn out. But then in death just leaving the victim hanging on the cross until they rotted would also be a message.

In colonial period England and it's colonies convicted criminals were left in the gibbet to starve to death and then the bodies were left to rot all while hanging in full view of the wharf. Even if you missed the execution you got a pretty good object lesson. When nobles were drawn and quartered the body parts were hung outside different cities so as many people as possible got the message.

Time was not important, being a brutal as possible was.

One of Henry VIII wives admitted to adultery (which was also treason in the case of the king) in order to be executed by beheading instead of being burnt at the stake (the judicial punishment for WOMEN convicted of treason).

kisses

willowfall

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

One of Henry VIII wives admitted to adultery (which was also treason in the case of the king) in order to be executed by beheading instead of being burnt at the stake (the judicial punishment for WOMEN convicted of treason).

To which wife are you referring? Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard. Both were convicted (in the not very just system of the day) of adultery and thus treason. The Law called for hanging, drawing and quartering for men and burning for women. I have never experienced either and I am not aware of anyone who experienced both and lived to say which was worse. Henry commuted both sentences to beheading and even hired a skilled French executioner to make it easier on Anne.
Anne certainly maintained her innocence (especially to the charge of incest with her brother) to the end. I believe Catherine did as well, although she was so hysterical through it all, she really made little sense (don't blame her.)

 

[windar]

The Law called for hanging, drawing and quartering for men and burning for women. I have never experienced either and I am not aware of anyone who experienced both and lived to say which was worse.

The same is true of crucifixion, yet some here insist it is worse than any other method of execution or torture. To my mind all of them are preferable to a long slow demise from dementia....

Henry commuted both sentences to beheading and even hired a skilled French executioner to make it easier on Anne.

You can read the gory details here
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/london-calling.6345/page-14

 

[willowfall]

To which wife are you referring? Anne Boleyn or Catherine Howard. Both were convicted (in the not very just system of the day) of adultery and thus treason. The Law called for hanging, drawing and quartering for men and burning for women. I have never experienced either and I am not aware of anyone who experienced both and lived to say which was worse. Henry commuted both sentences to beheading and even hired a skilled French executioner to make it easier on Anne.
Anne certainly maintained her innocence (especially to the charge of incest with her brother) to the end. I believe Catherine did as well, although she was so hysterical through it all, she really made little sense (don't blame her.)

I don't remember which one it was.

Just remember if they are going to behead you you want the sword not the ax. There are some pretty horrific descriptions on being executed with an ax. Including one where Henry VII had old woman who was virtually the last of the Plantagenets executed. It took the assistant executioner SIX whacks to get the old lady's head off.

What a lot of people don't realize is many times the ax did double duty chopping wood at the prison and wasn't always as sharp as it should have been. Also by that period many battle axes were not sharpened (because the couldn't penetrate plate armor) with thick blades used the same way a mace or war hammer was. To bludgeon.

kisses

willowfall

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

I don't remember which one it was.

Just remember if they are going to behead you you want the sword not the ax. There are some pretty horrific descriptions on being executed with an ax. Including one where Henry VII had old woman who was virtually the last of the Plantagenets executed. It took the assistant executioner SIX whacks to get the old lady's head off.

What a lot of people don't realize is many times the ax did double duty chopping wood at the prison and wasn't always as sharp as it should have been. Also by that period many battle axes were not sharpened (because the couldn't penetrate plate armor) with thick blades used the same way a mace or war hammer was. To bludgeon.

kisses

willowfall

To Bludgeon or not to bludgeon? That is the question. It is such a wonderful term in pulp newspapers. "He used an andiron to bludgeon his mother-in-law to death with 83 blows!"

 

[willowfall]

To Bludgeon or not to bludgeon? That is the question. It is such a wonderful term in pulp newspapers. "He used an andiron to bludgeon his mother-in-law to death with 83 blows!"

The pulps were onto something. More people are bludgeoned to death in the US than are killed by guns. And by a wide margin.

kisses

willowfall

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

The same is true of crucifixion, yet some here insist it is worse than any other method of execution or torture. To my mind all of them are preferable to a long slow demise from dementia....



You can read the gory details here
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/london-calling.6345/page-14

But you used an ax man! Naughty!

 

[windar]

The pulps were onto something. More people are bludgeoned to death in the US than are killed by guns. And by a wide margin.

kisses

willowfall

No kisses for you. Please do a little research before posting nonsense and claiming it to be fact. It's guns by a wide margin https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

 

[windar]

But you used an ax man! Naughty!

Literary license. Mine was suspended-don't tell anyone...

 

[Praefectus Praetorio]

The pulps were onto something. More people are bludgeoned to death in the US than are killed by guns. And by a wide margin.

kisses

willowfall

Because, short of using a 1.1"/75 caliber anti-aircraft gun like they do in North Korea, bludgeoning is cheaper and more satisfying "Take that, you big-mouthed, bitch - bludgeon, bludgeon!"

 

[willowfall]

No kisses for you. Please do a little research before posting nonsense and claiming it to be fact. It's guns by a wide margin https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Please go to the FBI statistics and not some propaganda outfit.

And notice your little stat is by "weapon". I said bludgeoned which includes pipes, bats, clubs, chairs, etcera, ectera, ectera.

Figures lie and ....................................

So who is posting the NONSENSE to prove "their" point?

kisses

willowfall

 

[windar]

Please go to the FBI statistics and not some propaganda outfit.

Happily https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Firearms by a wide margin.

Note firearms account for >50% of ALL homicides, so all bludgeonings by any means couldn't possibly exceed firearms (and that leaves out strangulation, cutting, etc.)

So YOU show some stats to dispute that. Not hand-waving, show your work...

No kisses....

Edit: You really shouldn't argue crime statistics with yours truly, a world famous detective who always usually sometimes occasionally busts the guilty party

 

[Loxuru]

Euh - could we come to the point again please? Higher goal of crucifixion? Since I bet that besides some Bronx affair, crucifixion will be insignificant in US crime statistics?
A higher goal of crucifixion? We are talking here about spiritual/erotic aspects of it, I presume?
Those people who, thousands of years ago, have invented crucifixion, had a higher goal : to inflict a cruel, humiliating death sentence. They wanted to punish, to deter, to create fear. A long, panful agony was part of it. Pure implementation of power! No spiritual or erotic intentions at all.
Christianity gave suffering of Christ a meaning : salvation of mankind. It looks like that crucifixion practice has hit some deep seated layer in some people’s sub-sub-sub conscience?

I think, the 'higher goal' of crucifixion, in the way we experience it, is just to satisfy an individual need. Whether this need is 'carried' by an idea of 'sacrifice' or of 'punisment' just depends on one's own field of interest.