Just a quick one today. It's late and I'm tired.
I was watching a special on crucifixion last night. They were trying to use forensic evidence unearthed during archaeological digs and textual evidence from the bible and historians of the time and such to reconstruct exactly how the Romans would have crucified someone. Turns out, they'd probably be made to carry not the whole cross, just the crossbeam, the cross would look more like a capital T, and they'd have a nail driven through each ankle, straddling each side of the cross with their feet on a platform. Anyway, that's neat and all, but what really intrigued me were the experiments they conducted with an actual living person. This person was chosen specifically for his build, which the historians involved deemed relatively similar to the build of a 33 year old Galilean around 2,000 years ago (Yeah, the History Channel gets all Jesus crazy around Christmas, I know but at least they crank out the devil really good around Halloween. Black masses and blood orgies and whatnot. Good stuff.) Anyway, they had this dude perform various stations of the cross as depicted, well, on the walls of every Catholic church I was ever forced into as a child, to see if they were physically possible and thus historically plausible. After several tries and several different methods, they came to the conclusions I noted above. What I wonder, and I what I pose to you is this: I assume being involved with a documentary on what is essentially the Passion of the Christ, this guy is at least a somewhat practicing Christian. As such, he may or may not see it as honorable, putting himself through what Jesus himself supposedly went through. But what if for this guy, physically, it turned out to be not that big a deal after all? What if Some Dude handled crucifixion better than the supposed Son of God? Would he feel good about that? Me personally, I'd be pumped. I'd have shirts made that said "Jesus was a pussy. I got crucified and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."