Thiefs not Crucified

[menegroth]

Hi there, been tryign to witness to a friend of mine but he is also a Historian which can make it challenging, he was saying that the crucifiction part of nw testament is flawed in that according to roman law thiefs were never crucified, it was reserved for people of threat to the government. so i could see why jesus would warrant it given that he came proclaiming a way to heaven which in an economic view would drain the various religious institutions of money given that peopel were not paying for sacrifices or what have you. anyone have any info on this? just curious

[Gerioke]

Hi there, been tryign to witness to a friend of mine but he is also a Historian which can make it challenging, he was saying that the crucifiction part of nw testament is flawed in that according to roman law thiefs were never crucified, it was reserved for people of threat to the government. so i could see why jesus would warrant it given that he came proclaiming a way to heaven which in an economic view would drain the various religious institutions of money given that peopel were not paying for sacrifices or what have you. anyone have any info on this? just curious

Maybe the thief stole from someone with power?

[WayneB]

Hi there, been tryign to witness to a friend of mine but he is also a Historian which can make it challenging, he was saying that the crucifiction part of nw testament is flawed in that according to roman law thiefs were never crucified, it was reserved for people of threat to the government. so i could see why jesus would warrant it given that he came proclaiming a way to heaven which in an economic view would drain the various religious institutions of money given that peopel were not paying for sacrifices or what have you. anyone have any info on this? just curious

Maybe your historian friend is confused between punishments for Romans citizens and those outside the protection of Roman law?

The thief on the cross was not a Roman citizen and therefore not under protection of Roman Law. He had no right of appeal and most any punishment could be inflicted upon him. He was considered less than human as all non-Roman citizens were.

That is my understanding.

For instance, Paul (Saul) was a Roman citizen, which is why he could appeal to Rome and why he was released when jailed illegally.

Does that help?

[apothanein kerdos]

Hi there, been tryign to witness to a friend of mine but he is also a Historian which can make it challenging, he was saying that the crucifiction part of nw testament is flawed in that according to roman law thiefs were never crucified, it was reserved for people of threat to the government. so i could see why jesus would warrant it given that he came proclaiming a way to heaven which in an economic view would drain the various religious institutions of money given that peopel were not paying for sacrifices or what have you. anyone have any info on this? just curious

Unfortunately, your historian friend is off. Roman crucifixion took place often for those outside the bounds of citizenship by the Roman Empire. Furthermore, this took place in Judea, which used merely the taxes and the authority of the Roman Empire at that time. Thus, if the Sanhedrin ordered someone to die by crucifixion for a crime, the Roman authorities would follow along with this. In Judea, we have adulterers, thieves, murderers, blasphemers, etc., all dying from crucifixion because the high council ordered it to be so.

General studies in Roman punishment, specifically on Roman citizens, cannot be applied to Judea because it was an anomaly to the Empire.

[carrielles]

Hi there, been tryign to witness to a friend of mine but he is also a Historian which can make it challenging, he was saying that the crucifiction part of nw testament is flawed in that according to roman law thiefs were never crucified, it was reserved for people of threat to the government. so i could see why jesus would warrant it given that he came proclaiming a way to heaven which in an economic view would drain the various religious institutions of money given that peopel were not paying for sacrifices or what have you. anyone have any info on this? just curious

Maybe your historian friend is confused between punishments for Romans citizens and those outside the protection of Roman law?

The thief on the cross was not a Roman citizen and therefore not under protection of Roman Law. He had no right of appeal and most any punishment could be inflicted upon him. He was considered less than human as all non-Roman citizens were.

That is my understanding.

For instance, Paul (Saul) was a Roman citizen, which is why he could appeal to Rome and why he was released when jailed illegally.

Does that help?

[Iryssa]

It's true...the laws for Roman citizens were very different from those for non-citizens. It was part of why being a citizen was such a priviledge: it offered you certain protection. People outside of Roman law were crucified for all kinds of things.

[Guest]

I think the premise is wrong.

The Romans crucified anyone, at any time, anytime they felt like it. The road to Jerusalem was lined with thousands of crosses with rotting corpses on them as a reminder of Roman law.

[Lost_and_Confused!]

Very interesting. If the thieves werent crucified and that means that jesus might not have been crucified hmm. but it can be historically proven that someone was crucified around the time jesus was. wow i fit my name well very confused lol.

[EricH]

Very interesting. If the thieves werent crucified and that means that jesus might not have been crucified hmm. but it can be historically proven that someone was crucified around the time jesus was. wow i fit my name well very confused lol.

No one is arguing here that the thieves were not crucified. What they are discussing is how did their crucifiction relate to Roman law??

[Lost_and_Confused!]

Very interesting. If the thieves werent crucified and that means that jesus might not have been crucified hmm. but it can be historically proven that someone was crucified around the time jesus was. wow i fit my name well very confused lol.

No one is arguing here that the thieves were not crucified. What they are discussing is how did their crucifiction relate to Roman law??

Ok sir. I didnt get that but if you say so. the crucifixion went against roman law.