View source for Talk:Crucifixion

{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC|action1result=not promoted|action1date=2006-07-17, 14:52:29|action1oldid=64221034|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crucifixion/archive1
|currentstatus=FFAC}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=High|bible=yes|bible-importance=high|jesus-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 31K
|counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Talk:Crucifixion/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{archives|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=31}}

== Too Christian centric  ==
This article is structured very heavily in favour of Jesus of Nazareth. He wasn’t the only person to be crucified. Can’t we restructure it to explain what crucifixion is and how it works? And then focus on famous individuals or groups? Otherwise we get this Christian prejudice which distorts discussion of the issue. [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 01:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
:Wierd. Have you actually read it? There is actually very little on Jesus, although his is almost the only specific crucifixion of which we have early accounts. Of course his has its own article. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
::Yes - are we reading the same article? I think all of the images (at least until half way through) are Christ on the cross. The early sections are peppered with references to thew New Testament and first century Palestine. Is the crucifixion of the Nazarene Jesus, really the earliest description anywhere of this form of death? Is his death described anywhere other than the religious texts produced by the early christian community? If - as you say - there is a separate article about the death of Jesus of Nazareth, then maybe this article could do with a good prune back.[[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 05:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

== Irrelevant ==

The image in "society and law" (or how is it called) is not relevant to the theme, especially when used as a double image. Why do you need a doubled carricature of old timee with some old title there?

By the way, the image is blasphemous, and not in need in this page! [[Special:Contributions/88.155.16.101|88.155.16.101]] ([[User talk:88.155.16.101|talk]]) 07:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
:That is not irrelevant, this is the most ancient depiction of a crucified Jesus. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 14:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
:I agree with Dimadick: as the earliest potential depiction of Christian crucifixion, it's certainly relevant to any historical discussion on this subject.
:With respect to the claim that the image is "blasphemous", see [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 00:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

::Response:
::*Firstly, the image is not seemingly relevant to the section or part it was placed in.

::*Then, why do you quote wp guidelines as the truth or nearest thing to verifiability?  Wikipedia has [[egoism|egoistic features]] (and how does it dare claim it's not a bereaucracy!), it wants us to think thst its rules are a law or the most important thing. 

::*Thirdly, it says "verifiability, not truth", standing on reliable sources so-called! Then cnn, for you, is verifiably reliable one, msnbc also, the Bible not for them!

::*Question: how can i verify that wikipedia guidelines are reliable ones?

::Representing [[Special:Contributions/88.155.16.101|88.155.16.101]] 08:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

:::What section do you think it belongs in? [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 01:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::::It may not even belong to the article on crucifixion in general, because there is a special page devoted to the death of Jesus! 

::::Additionally, the image for me, despite the inscriptions, does not appear to be a first depiction of Jesus crucified — but instead that image depicts some donkey... Even not for Christians, how could some donkey be the Lamb of the Lord our God (capitalized)? [[Special:Contributions/88.155.37.194|88.155.37.194]] ([[User talk:88.155.37.194|talk]]) 11:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::Two editors have already responded on the appropriateness of the image to this article. In your prior response, you changed to suggesting it was maybe in the wrong ''section'', which is something I at least am open to considering as a potential improvement; hence my question. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 04:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

::::::The image is more "appropriate" to #Ancient Rome, subsection History [[Special:Contributions/88.155.32.147|88.155.32.147]] ([[User talk:88.155.32.147|talk]]) 11:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::::I actually don't have too much of a problem with moving it there; the image's value is historical, and doesn't really serve to elucidate process. {{ping|Dimadick}}, what do you think?
:::::::Also, when I took a look at this I saw that portions of the "History" section really belong in the "Process" section. I'll have a closer look at this and start a more detailed separate discussion later today. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 17:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

== Clunky, not encyclopedic, and wrong ==

''"Although not conclusive evidence for female crucifixion by itself, the most ancient image of a Roman crucifixion may depict a crucified woman, whether real or imaginary."''

Came to this Article asking the question "Did the Romans crucify women?" and while that question is sort of weakly answered "Yes", this meandering oddball of a point is non-sequitor for many reasons, first and foremost because it doesn't really say anything, i.e. "may depict".  And so what?  I might have a billion dollars in the bank, too.  People come to Wikipedia for information, not meandering maybes.  If say for example the Article took the question head-on and said "We think so but there's no hard evidence." and then it gave this weak, spineless and not-informative dab of not-information, they yeah sure maybe it flows, but if the Article is going to hang it's hat on this stupid little sentence, it should be zapped and replaced with something more concrete.[[Special:Contributions/2603:8081:3A00:30DF:BC56:A5DE:FF60:645D|2603:8081:3A00:30DF:BC56:A5DE:FF60:645D]] ([[User talk:2603:8081:3A00:30DF:BC56:A5DE:FF60:645D|talk]]) 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

== Debunked Propoganda a Feature? ==

I understand in a way, yet I don't, that the (Crucifixion Hoax) propaganda campaign against Ze Germans is featured in this article, with even a poster. This sort of dehumanizing misinformation sadly persists in one form or another to this day. But the fact-checked conclusion is that Ze Germans did not in fact do this. I suppose it is noteworthy more in what it says about the spreaders of this false information and deserves a Wikipedia write-up but it struck me as odd that it was in this article. I wonder if the propaganda image ought not to carry a stronger caption denouncing the perpetrators of that hoax? But I'm not sure. I will leave it to better minds. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/120.51.67.232|120.51.67.232]] ([[User talk:120.51.67.232#top|talk]]) 08:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)</small>

== Words of the Cross in the Gospel of Luke and Acts, Also Traditionally Written by Luke, Compared ==
{{cait}}
The Acts of the Apostles presents the death of Stephen in a way that parallels the death of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. Both works are traditionally attributed to the same author, commonly referred to as Luke. Scholars have noted that Stephen's final words closely resemble those spoken by Jesus at his crucifixion, which some interpret as a literary device highlighting continuity between Jesus and early Christian figures.

Two passages in particular are frequently cited in this comparison:
:Jesus: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46)<ref>Luke 23:46, ESV</ref>
:Stephen: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59)<ref>Acts 7:59, ESV</ref>
:Jesus: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34)<ref>Luke 23:34, ESV</ref>
:Stephen: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them" (Acts 7:60)<ref>Acts 7:60, ESV</ref>

These parallels have been interpreted by some scholars as intentional, suggesting that the author sought to portray Stephen as a follower who imitates Jesus in both life and death. A key distinction often noted is that Jesus addresses the Father, while Stephen addresses Jesus. Some theologians view this as indicative of an early Christian understanding of Jesus in a divine or exalted role.

F. F. Bruce comments that “Stephen dies as his Master did, with words of forgiveness on his lips and a commendation of his spirit. But significantly, he addresses Jesus, not the Father—revealing the early church’s view of the exalted Christ.”<ref>Bruce, F. F. ''The Book of Acts''. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988, p. 165.</ref>

According to N. T. Wright, “Stephen dies a martyr’s death, but in doing so he is conformed to the image of Christ.”<ref>Wright, N. T. ''Acts for Everyone: Part One: Chapters 1–12''. London: SPCK, 2012, p. 128.</ref>

Joel B. Green notes that the author “not only highlights the continuity between Jesus and his disciples but also makes a strong claim about the participation of believers in the life—and suffering—of Christ.”<ref>Green, Joel B. ''The Gospel of Luke''. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, p. 826.</ref>

Some scholars argue that this narrative structure illustrates how early Christian writers presented Jesus not only as a model for ethical conduct but also as a recipient of prayer, a role traditionally associated with the divine. Others view these parallels as emphasizing the ideal of discipleship in the context of persecution and martyrdom. [[User:Whirlingmerc|Whirlingmerc]] ([[User talk:Whirlingmerc|talk]]) 21:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
{{tref}}
{{caib}}