2006-12-02 04:19:36 · 17 answers · asked by JOETHUNDER 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No matter how many times this question is asked, the answer is still no.
2006-12-02 04:23:09 · answer #1 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have not heard of that one before.
"Moses law" - 40 stripes minus 1, was I thought because 40 was conidered to be a death sentence - and thus by some cranky reckoning, 39 ought to guarantee they survived.
Arguably, the scourging was done PARTLY for the benefit of the person being scourged if they were going to be crucified afterwards. If the person was not scourged first, they might be strong enough to spend a few days dying on the cross - instead of a few hours.
I had never heard of the "39 major diseases" - would be interested if you could add a comment to whoever gets "best answer" that mentions a link perhaps to something about this.
2006-12-02 04:25:32 · answer #2 · answered by Mark T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's somewhat of a stretch. First of all, how can you know there were only 39 strokes? And who counted 39 diseases? How do you decide which are major and which are common?
2006-12-04 14:14:56 · answer #3 · answered by todaywiserthanyesterday 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who told you there are 39 major diseases of mankind ?? A little research would reveal the nonsense behind this assertion. I hope you are not a Doctor!
2006-12-02 05:02:56 · answer #4 · answered by ED SNOW 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The Romans considered 39 strokes an act of mercy, because 40 was known to kill. So the idea was that one stroke less was just short of the death penalty. Of course, that became moot when they decided to crucify Him, but they didn't know they were going to do that at the time.
2006-12-02 04:27:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.Under Roman Law 40 stroke was equal to death sentance.The maximum was 39 for other punishments.There are supposed to be 40 sensitive points on human body and whipping all 40 will result in death.(These points are called Marmas in orient)
2006-12-05 15:37:09 · answer #6 · answered by leowin1948 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Or the 39 steps down to Blackpool beach?
2006-12-02 04:25:52 · answer #7 · answered by Musicol 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Thirty-nine was the number commonly used because - by Roman Law - if the lasher gave the lashee more that the maximum FORTY lashes (the most that could be given by any Roman) - in other words, if he mis-counted - then the "whipper" could get the same punishment.
It was a way to keep the executioner from going "over the limit" - they usually only gave thirty-nine so that there would be no doubt.
2006-12-02 04:25:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.
It has always been considered that most men would likely die after receiving 40 lashes.
Since the death penalty was reserved only for capital offenses, 40 lashes minus one, was the prescribed number for routine floggings.
2006-12-02 06:47:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Question the existence of Jesus
2006-12-02 04:31:10 · answer #10 · answered by lulu 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its just a story, it has no relevance, it could have been the average length of a gladioli or the average number of strokes each monk had in the naughty parchment room
2006-12-02 04:49:38 · answer #11 · answered by OhSimonsBinDrinkin 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋