Actually it was a stab to his side with a spear that finished him not the nailing to the cross. Him being nailed to the cross would of had him die slowly for days but the Romans speared him to kill him quickly. They originally planned to break his legs with a large hammer which with crucifixion cause death faster than just nailing him to the cross but found it better to kill him quickly. So he wouldn't be made a larger martyr than he was already becoming.
The rumor is that the Roman soldier who speared him was blind and that was why he was picked to do it but when Jesus's blood splashed his face the Roman soldier was no longer blind.
That is almost all incorrect. Jesus was already dead when the roman’s Returned after a while which was uncommon as most people tried to keep themselves alive so they broke the legs of the other two men he was crucified with but to prove Jesus’s death they stabbed him in the hip when he didn’t move they took him down and buried him. Also jesus’s Crucifixion was out of the ordinary already as most men were only tied tightly to the cross where as he was nailed.
Y’all are kinda both wrong, the didn’t stab him in the hip they stabbed him in the lung with a spear to see what would come out, water if he was dead and blood if he was still alive. Water came out so they knew he was already dead
Well thanks for that part but that’s the less offensive wrong part to me. More around the actual act of crucifixion and how misunderstood it is by christians
Actually, no there aren’t. When looking at the original manuscripts all of them document the same event. I’ve never ever heard of the blind Roman before
I think the event happens differently in alot of religions. In mine I was raised southern Baptist we were told the version I know. I even teach this myself and my lessons have to be checked by our preacher for accuracy.
The rumor is that the Roman soldier who speared him was blind and that was why he was picked to do it but when Jesus's blood splashed his face the Roman soldier was no longer blind.