Is it true that Jesus was scourged to such an extent that the whip marks left his body resembling a bloody pulp?
Answer: Scourging appears to have been a customary preliminary administered to those about to be crucified. The condemned, usually stripped naked, was beaten and mocked all the way to the execution site. Yet, at most, Jesus underwent a superficial scourging. According to Mark 15:20 and Matthew 27:31 the Roman soldiers "put his own outer garments on him" before he was led to the place of execution. New Testament confirmation that Jesus' scourging was mild (if it occurred at all) is found in this claim that he was given his own clothes to wear to the execution. On arrival at the execution site the clothes he wore, both his outer garments and his inner garment, were not bloodstained and torn by the whiplash of the blows struck as the condemned marched to his execution. If his clothes were blood-soaked and torn they would have been of no value to the soldiers. The author of John writes:
The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his outer garments [imatia] and made four parts to every soldier and also the inner garment [khitona]; now the inner garment was seamless, woven in one piece. They said therefore to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be;" that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "They divided my outer garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." (John 19:23-24; see also Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34)
If Jesus wore clothing on a scourged ripped-raw body the clothing removed from him would be shredded and soaked in blood. For what purpose would the soldiers divide up such bloodied and torn clothing? The presumption must be that the clothing he wore to the execution site were in good, usable condition. It follows that Jesus' physical condition was not greatly altered by what the evangelists call a "scourging." Furthermore, the Gospels make no mention of scourging taking place at the site of the crucifixion. To take the New Testament's description of Jesus final hours at their word one would have to assume that a scourging was not inflicted upon Jesus.
Question: Ithas been told that Jesus shed his blood as atonement while in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night before his crucifixion. Wouldn't this be considered as a blood sacrifice on his part?
Answer: The reference is to an alleged bloodlike sweat reported by the author of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:44). A sweat of blood is not physically impossible. There are instances of hematidrosis, involving intense dilation of subcutaneous capillaries that burst into the sweat glands. The blood then clots and is carried to the surface of the skin by the sweat. The Gospel of Luke, however, does not speak of a sweat of blood but of a sweat so profuse that it was like blood. It describes the drenching perspiration as becoming "like drops of blood," but there was no actual blood. The shedding of sweat does not qualify as atonement sacrifice. Additionally, the Torah condemns any form of human sacrifice.
Question: What difference does it make if Jesus did or did not undergo serious blood loss while being prepared for or undergoing execution?
Answer: According to the New Testament, blood must be shed in order to obtain atonement. The author of the Book of Hebrews maintains that obtaining forgiveness of sin always necessitates that there must first be a shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:11-12, 22). Luke's Jesus claims that his blood was shed for his followers (Luke 22:20).
In the biblical blood sacrifice offering, a token blood letting is not sufficient nor is mere death sufficient. The sacrifice has to die through the shedding of blood. At no time did Jesus suffer blood loss to the extent of it being the cause of his death. Neither the blood loss due to the scourging (Matthew 27:26, Mark 15:15, John 19:1), the nail wounds (John 20:25), or crown of thorns (Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17, John 19:2) caused Jesus' death. As a result, not only was Jesus' death not an everlasting atonement for sin it was not even a sacrifice.
Question: Did a Roman soldier shed Jesus' blood?
Answer: John 19:34 claims that "one of the soldiers pierced his [Jesus'] side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water." According to John 19:33, the Roman soldiers did not break Jesus' legs because he was already dead. Chronologically, John 19:33 established the time of the inflicting of the wound in Jesus' side (John 19:34) as subsequent to his death. John's sequence of events is contradicted in some manuscript versions of Matthew 27:49 which state, "And another took a spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood." This addition to the verse places the time of the inflicting of the wound as prior to Jesus' death. However, it is an interpolation unsupported by the best of the ancient New Testament manuscripts. Blood oozing from a wound inflicted after death does not qualify as the shedding of blood required of an atonement offering. The piercing of Jesus' body by a spear did not cause his death. Jesus did not die as a result of blood loss (Matthew 27:46-50, Mark 15:34- 37, Luke 23:46, John 19:28-30). Jesus' blood was not shed by a Roman soldier's spear, thrust into his side.
Question: Does Mel Gibson Portray these facts in his film
Answer:No
