Why didn't Jesus have himself impaled?

After reading up on this it seems like Jesus pussed out by taking an afternoon's crucifixion over a week's impalement. Now that's suffering. So why take crucifixion instead? Think about it.

A messiah on a cross with arms wide is a more appealing symbol than a messiah-ke-bob with a spike up his ass. Imagine the statues and symbols of the latter adorning the altars, necklaces, and shrines of the world.

Think of poor Doubting Thomas. What does he do to verify the wounds of the risen impaled Jesus? ("Until I push my fist up his gaping backside, I will not believe.") And just imagine what impalement stigmata would be like. (Padre Pio: "I've been walking funny and shitting jets of blood for a week! Praise his holy name!")

Maybe Jesus wasn't wimping out, so much as engaging in a bit of far-sighted public relations.

In ancient Rome, the term "crucifixion" could also refer to impalement. This derives in part because the term for the one portion of a cross is synonymous with the term for a stake, so that when mentioned in historical sources without specific context, the exact method of execution, whether crucifixion or impalement, can be unclear. [...] The longitudinal penetration could be through the rectum, through the vagina, or through a wound opened specifically for the occasion, such as making a transverse incision to the os sacrum. [...] The survival time on the stake is quite variedly reported, from instantly or to a few minutes to a few hours or 1 to 3 days. The Dutch overlords at Batavia, present day Jakarta, seem to have been particularly proficient in prolonging the lifetime of the impaled, one witnessing a man surviving 6 days on the stake, another hearing from local surgeons that some could survive 8 or more days.

Load Previous Replies
  • up


    See, it does not work at all....

    Christ, you know it aint easy. You know how hard it can be.

    The way things are going. They're gonna impale me

    • up

      Ward Cressin

      I had been searching for a routine by a comedian and was initially impeded by not even remembering his name. I found that: Jake Johannsen. But of all the video and audio files on the web I can't find the one I want. The closest I could come to the bit was this description by someone else:

      "It started when he saw "soap on a rope" (which was an 80s thing, it was a bar of soap that you could wear like a necklace). He envisioned a religion where people wore soap on a rope instead of crucifixes. The adherents of the religion believed that rather than dying on the cross, Jesus actually slipped in the shower after the last supper, and hit his head and died. The whole cross thing, they believed, was a cover up. Rather than cross themselves, the worshipers would wave their arms and shout "wooooaaah" (as if they were slipping and falling in the shower). In their temples, rather than hanging large crosses from the ceiling, they would hang a bathtub."

      Teach the controversy!

      *   *   *   *   *

      @Belle Rose - "Ew....gross!"

      I had to laugh when I read this since I inferred that you might not consider the crucifixion gross. I don't know if you intended to imply that. Since both are torturous deaths and had heard of impaling before, I consider both "gross".

      *   *   *   *   *

      @Reg re vampires

      You do know the common stereotype of vampire hunters has them wielding a stake also, right?   :D


      *   *   *   *   *

      If they determine that Christ was impaled, does that mean people who engage in anal sex are more holy?

      Or just hole-y?

      • up


        You're raising an interesting question. It's like the Sherlock Holmes books where this master criiminal Moriarty is so bad because he runs prostitutes, knocks off enemies, and sells addictive drugs. Today, that's not so shocking. Any local big city drug lord does all that and worse. 

        So, why wasn't Jesus torn about by a pack of wolves or fed to the Lions? After all, he could always have arisen from the dead out of their stools, right?