What do you think of this?

[rug]

36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him, offering Him sour wine,

37 and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!"

38 Now there was also an inscription above Him, "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!"

40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Luke 23

[darkstar3]

1. A couple of quotes come to mind...

"Always look on the briiiiiiight side of life!" *whistle*

"Sadistic crap legitimized by florid prose. Tell me you're not a fan."

But mostly what I think is that this story is fictional. Even when I was a Christian and I attended church, my pastor told people that this part of the crucifixion story was probably embellished by Luke as a witnessing tool. All the gospels mention that Jesus is crucified with two other men, but only Luke bothers with this deathbed(stick) conversion.

[deutsey]

2. "I'm Brian...and so is my wife!"

:-)

[deutsey]

3. It's one version of the execution of Jesus

In Mark 15, the criminals both heap verbal abuse on him (verse 32):

21A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 23Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

25It was the third hour when they crucified him. 26The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews. 27They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.a 29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30come down from the cross and save yourself!”

31In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32Let this Christ,b this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

The Death of Jesus

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And 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?”c

35When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

36One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

38The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. 39And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry andd saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Sone of God!”

40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

[tiny elvis]

4. tired of that grim story

On the bank of the river Ganges there is a town of the name Kasi, (Banaras), where at the temple of Vishvanath, a great saint of the name Bharata lived. Daily with the greatest devotion, he would recite the fourth Chapter of Srimad Bhagavad-gita. Previously, when Bharat had been traveling on pilgrimage he had gone to the town of Tapodan to take darshan of the Deity of Lord Krishna there. While leaving that town, he saw two Bael fruit trees. Deciding to take rest under the shade of those trees, he lay down, using the root of one of the tree as a pillow, and a root of the other to rest his feet upon.

After some time, when Bharat left from that place, those two trees started to dry up. Within five or six days both trees completely dried up and died. The two souls, who had been living in those trees, took their next birth as the daughters of a very pious Brahmana. Once, when those girls had reached the age of seven years, they had gone on pilgrimage to Kasi (Banaras). While wandering in Kasi, they happened to see the great sage Bharata. When they saw Bharata Maharaja they immediately went and fell at his feet and in sweet words said, "Oh. Maharaja Bharat, due to your mercy we both became freed from the tree form of life."

[BurtWorm]

5. How did Luke or his amanuensis learn of this exchange between Jesus and his keepers?

How did they learn what Jesus's final words were, for that matter?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

6. "We are receiving what we deserve for our deeds."

That's the interesting part to me. First of all, while the other two are criiminals, I don't know that they deserve to be tortured to death. But that's not really the important part. The second criminal doesn't think that Jesus's execution is a good thing. But there is a view that the Crucifixion, in a weird way, was actually good. Today, the day that commemorates that part of the story, is of course called "Good Friday." Without Jesus's wrongful conviction and execution, the story goes, we couldn't all have our forgiveness and redemption. The second criminal doesn't seem to know that part.

I don't really know if this is what you're interested in discussing, but I have always thought that the fact that one man had to bear everybody's guilt and suffering was really unfair. If we are all sinful or guilty in some way, shouldn't we all have to bear some small measure of penance? I think of the modern environmental movement's efforst towards reducing consumption: we all need to make some small sacrifice, hopefully not onerous but definitely significant, in order to save the environment which benefits everyone. Or you could draw an anology to taxation in a modern social democratic state: we are all asked to give some portion of our income, again hopefully not too much but still a significant amount, to bring the benefit of gauratneed income, universal healthcare, attainable higher education, unemployment insurance, old age pension, and the social safety net to all citizens. But these are modern values being imputed onto a very old story with very different values. As I often point out, these stories come from a pre-Enlightenment, pre-Industrial, largley agrarian/pastoralist society with very, very limited scientific knowledge, living 2000-3000 years ago on the opposite side of the Earth, as a small desert nation on the margins or great empires and if not for happy accident, on the margins of history. These stories come from people with a way of life that could hardly be more different from ours, and must be treated accordingly.

[onager]

7. An impossible story, let's not forget...

All the posters in here mentioned Alleged Jesus being crucified "between two criminals." But the KJV I memorized as a young SoB (Southern Baptist) was a lot more specific:

Mark 15:27 - And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

Matthew 27:44 - The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

That story is impossible for a simple reason - theft wasn't a capital crime under Roman law. Or Jewish law. It was just a petty crime, the same as it is under our modern law.

Imagine a couple of modern kids caught shoplifting at Wal-Mart, then immediately executed by lethal injection. That would be the modern equivalent of this story.

So why cram in such an obvious legal/historical blunder? As usual, to "fulfill" Old Testament prophecies, in this case Isaiah and Psalms. Sort of.

Usual Irrelevant Rant: while ancient Jews and modern Xians often rant about the cruel Roman rule in Judea, objective reading seems to tell a different story.

A couple of examples from the Xians' favorite go-to historian, Mr. Flavius Jospephus:

--After Herod The Great died, his Judean kingdom was split among three of his sons: the Herods Archelaus, Phillip and Antipas, that early patron of the lap dance.

Archelaus became the ruler of two peoples who hated each other and constantly fought (largely because they worshipped different deities) - the Jews and Samaritans.

Despite a strong mutual hatred, the Samaritans and Jews agreed on one thing - they all hated Herod Archelaus even more, and wanted him removed from office.

They sent a combined delegation to the Roman governor in Syria, with a list of their grievances.

So what did the Romans do? Tell the Jews and Samaritans they could suck it, that Archelaus was a Roman-approved official and was staying in power?

Why no - those cruel, barbarous Romans agreed with their subjects and sent Archelaus packing. They exiled him to just about the most distant Roman outpost from Judea they could find - modern Vienna, Austria.

--Flavius Josephus also tells the story of a guy named Jesus who pissed off the Romans in The Jewish Wars, Chapter 6.

This was Jesus ben Ananias, who lived around 62 CE. But any resident of a modern city would recognize his type immediately. He was a ranting god-botherer who went around screaming stuff like this: "Woe to the city! Woe! A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

From the story, a mob of theological critics surrounded this Jesus and nearly killed him. The Romans stepped in and took him into a sort of protective custody.

Apparently the Romans just wanted to know whether or not he was a real revolutionary. By 62 CE, Jerusalem was boiling on the point of a Major Insurgency and everybody knew it.

The streets of Jerusalem were chock full of anti-Roman preachers at the time, most of them spouting vague religious prophecies and dooms/woes. (All of which is captured just wonderfully in Josephus' accounts.)

In the end, after interrogation, mockery and flogging, the Romans decided this Jesus was just a harmless crackpot and turned him loose.

Probably to the great relief of his neighbors, during the siege of Jerusalem a few years later this Jesus was killed instantly by a stone hurled from a Roman catapult. No doubt right in the middle of screeching "woe" to somebody...

[deutsey]

8. Thanks. I found this very informative.

:hi:

[struggle4progress]

10. Traditional Roman law treated free and slave differently, and theft certainly could earn execution:

THE LAWS OF THE TWELVE TABLES
... TABLE II. Concerning judgments and thefts ...
Law V. If anyone commits a theft during the day, and is caught in the act, he shall be scourged, and given up as a slave to the person against whom the theft was committed. If he who perpetrated the theft is a slave, he shall be beaten with rods and hurled from the Tarpeian Rock ... http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps01_1.htm

[struggle4progress]

11. And as for the tender mercies of the Romans, let us note from Josephus:

... Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury, (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done,) Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited ...

Wars of the Jews, Book VII
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148%3Abook%3D1%3Awhiston+chapter%3Dpr.%3Awhiston+section%3D1

[onager]

12. You're really reaching.

Post 1: None of the punishments mentioned are crucifixion. That was a Roman penalty reserved for capital crimes only, at least from my reading. e.g., after Spartacus' slave revolt, the Roman government wanted to send a message. So the Appian Way, from Rome to Capua, was lined with rebels nailed to crosses.

For people who really want to be like Jebus, you can still be legally crucified. In Saudi Arabia, for the crime of highway robbery. At least that was the official penalty when I lived there.

Post 2: that description is of Jerusalem, at the end of a long and bitter war. Not typical treatment of Roman subjects.

Naturally the Romans demolished the Temple. Militarily, they would have been idiots not to - it was the biggest and strongest fortification in Jerusalem. e.g., the Temple courtyard alone was about the size of 4 modern football fields.

The heavily armed Zealots barricaded themselves inside the Temple, and the Romans took a lot of casualties just fighting their way into the place.

Atrocities were committed on both sides. Roman accounts of that battle note that the insurgents lured a Roman detachment onto a wooden portico of the Temple, then set it on fire. The Romans watched their fellow soldiers burned alive and couldn't reach them. So the Romans weren't inclined to help when a group of rebels (including women and children) were later trapped in a similar fire, in another part of the Temple.

[struggle4progress]

13. "... Domitian al- lowed the play to end with a scene in which a criminal condemned under the

common law was substituted for the actor and put to death with tortures in which there was nothing imaginary. The spectators were not revolted by the ignoble spectacle of a pitiable Prometheus derided, torn by the nails which pinned his palms and ankles to the cross, or seared by the claws of the Caledonian bear to which he had been flung as prey; in fact, Martial sings the praises of the prince who made these things possible ..."

DAILY LIFE IN ANCIENT ROME
BY JEROME CARCOPINO
http://www.archive.org/stream/dailylifeinancie035465mbp/dailylifeinancie035465mbp_djvu.txt

There are similar references, I think, in Juvenal and Petronius. With the early successes of the empire, slaves became plentiful and cheap -- and Roman law, which allowed a father to kill his children at any age whatsoever on the theory that they belonged to him, was even less generous to slaves

[ChadwickHenryWard]

14. As I understand it, Jesus himself would never have been up there in the first place.

It would have been just as unusual for Pilate to allow the mob to judge Jesus as a judge or magistrate of today to do the same. There are all sorts of people out there (read: Republicans) who would dole out capital punishment for purse-snatching. Luckily, we as the Romans before us, have a judicial system that does not bend to the will of the mob. That whole "Ecce homo" scene could never have happened. But that's not really a big deal - it's just a myth. Nobody complains about the impossibility of the feats of Herules, Castor and Pollux, or Orpheus on the Argo. Because it's not real.

Your historical persective is always appreciated, though.

[Toasterlad]

15. More Than Unfair, It Makes Absolutely No Sense

Why should MY evil be expunged because someone else dies? The whole story is just one more instance of a god demanding human sacrifice. Christians who laugh at stories of ancient religions who practiced human sacrifice to appease diverse pantheons go to church every week and celebrate the same pointless type of human sacrifice.

[Christa]

9. Snuff story. nt