Jesus-didn't-die-on-the-cross-theory

Originally posted by RJHinds
The authors of that letter, Amnon Ben-Tor and Steven D. Fraade
are associated with Yale University and apparently have prejudice
of their own and neither one is a medical doctor.

They state themselves to be an archaeologist and a historian of biblical times.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why did the disciples cover him with healing herbs like Aloe, which is mentioned in the bible? It seems to me if he was dead they would embalm him instead. That is an inconsistency you have to live with.

Here is my take on it: He was crucified, but some of the disciples paid the soldiers to cut him down after only a few hours rather than the 24 hours mos d maybe beheaded him also or maybe put in one of those body fry boxes they were so fond of.

blah blah de blah, its pure Ahmadiyya Muslim concept which I have heard countless
times . Did you know that its also professed that he went to India and had three
children. The things you people are willing to give credence to on the flimsiest of basis
is truly outstanding and is nothing short of hypocrisy. Spare me, plueeeeze.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...the only trouble he has is that he has closed his mind to the idea that there
could have been supernatural intervention, on what basis? ...”

on the bases of there being no evidence for anything supernatural.

There is also no evidence that there is a tooth fairy -hence I don't think the tooth fairy intervention for exactly the same reason ...[text shortened]... agine a plausible explanation that assumes nothing supernatural, is always a stupid assumption.

there is also no evidence that Christ survived and yet here you are! proffering away
and giving credence to all sorts of assumptions with no actual evidence, interesting
phenomena. I wont call it hypocrisy, but its borders on double standards as its nothing
more than pure unsubstantiated belief.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You also asked about why the two churches were involved. Why wouldn't
they be consulted to make sure no information was missed in determining
how Jesus died. After all it was reported in the Holy Bible.

I cited the normal source that is usually done. I gave the name of the
article and the magazine, the date and the page.

Oh come now. My nephew is a pathologist. Ask your medical expert friends whether the Holy Bible reports meet any kind of medical standard of 'information" on COD (cause-of-death) that they are bound to, by their profession. You are grasping at straws because you got hoodwinked into arguing from evidence, including "expert testimony," on something that is really about faith. It proceeds from faith, not from evidence. You know that, RJ. And the usual decent citation on the internet is a url.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is also no evidence that Christ survived and yet here you are! proffering away
and giving credence to all sorts of assumptions with no actual evidence, interesting
phenomena. I wont call it hypocrisy, but its borders on double standards as its nothing
more than pure unsubstantiated belief.

"there is also no evidence that Christ survived"???

Evidence what a person survived would be people testifying that he was seen alive after the incident alleged to be his death. Do you deny that evidence?

Originally posted by JS357
"there is also no evidence that Christ survived"???

Evidence what a person survived would be people testifying that he was seen alive after the incident alleged to be his death. Do you deny that evidence?

yes i do, for if you know anything about the details, unless Christ survived and was
then able to pass through walls, its a nonsense to assume, please note the
terminology, assume, that he survived execution. Please tell, what is this evidence that
Christ survived execution? that he was put in a memorial tomb, for the DEAD? that
his disciples prepared his body, as for the DEAD?

Originally posted by JS357
"there is also no evidence that Christ survived"???

Evidence what a person survived would be people testifying that he was seen alive after the incident alleged to be his death. Do you deny that evidence?

After Jesus died, God brought Him back to life 3 days and 3 nights later.
There is then reports of people seeing Him alive, one or two at a time at
first and later there is a report of over 5 hundred people seing Him alive
at one time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i do, for if you know anything about the details, unless Christ survived and was then able to pass through walls, its a nonsense to assume, please note the terminology, assume, that he survived execution.

I think it is a nonsense to assume anything about what happened. Don't you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
After Jesus died, God brought Him back to life 3 days and 3 nights later.
There is then reports of people seeing Him alive, one or two at a time at
first and later there is a report of over 5 hundred people seing Him alive
at one time.

But the alternate idea is that he didn't die. Don't you understand that, even if you don't agree?

Originally posted by JS357
I think it is a nonsense to assume anything about what happened. Don't you?

the evidence, you stated, the evidence, therefore let us consider the medical evidence,

(John 19:34) . . .Yet one of the soldiers jabbed his side with a spear, and
immediately blood and water came out. . .

By a literal rupture of the heart or one of the great blood vessels where it attaches
to the heart blood would be discharged into the pericardium, the membrane that
loosely encases the heart and in which is also contained the watery pericardial fluid.
In writing on the physical cause of Jesus’ death one doctor said that such a rupture
did take place and blood gushed into the pericardium, there to separate into watery
serum and red, soft clotted matter. He pointed out that such separation of the
blood’s constituent parts seldom occurs in a dead body except under such cases of
extravasation, that is, where the blood is forced or let out of its proper vessels.
Then if a soldier standing below Jesus’ body on the stake would thrust a spear
upward into the side, it could easily travel upward, under the ribs, pierce the
pericardium bulging with serum and clotted matter, and cause the flow of what
would appear as “blood and water”. Or, it is possible for the ruptured heart or aorta
to force blood into the chest cavity, and in this unnatural place the blood would soon
begin separating into serum and red clotted matter. Out of the big gash made by
the upthrust spearhead this watery serum and clotted matter would gush.

chances of survival?

Originally posted by JS357
But the alternate idea is that he didn't die. Don't you understand that, even if you don't agree?

Yes, but what I have tried to point out is the weakness of that theory.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the evidence, you stated, the evidence, therefore let us consider the medical evidence,

(John 19:34) . . .Yet one of the soldiers jabbed his side with a spear, and
immediately blood and water came out. . .

By a literal rupture of the heart or one of the great blood vessels where it attaches
to the heart blood would be discharged into the p ...[text shortened]... the upthrust spearhead this watery serum and clotted matter would gush.

chances of survival?

Did you cite = http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T9HAJ4BAL30DA5HLA/p10?

Of course the Bible is not a recognized source of medical evidence, except by its believers.

Originally posted by JS357
Did you cite = http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T9HAJ4BAL30DA5HLA/p10?

Of course the Bible is not a recognized source of medical evidence, except by its believers.

no one is saying that it is a source of medical evidence, all that has transpired is that
an attempt has been made to describe what took place when blood and water poured
out of Christ after he was stabbed in the side with a Roman spear. Why you are
saying that the Bible is a source of medical evidence i have no idea. Indeed, how else
shall you explain the phenomena of water and blood?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, but what I have tried to point out is the weakness of that theory.

Assuming that people did see Jesus alive after the crucifixion, the theory that Jesus survived it is weak only to the degree the Bible theory is strong, wouldn't you agree? It is just that the latter theory requires faith, not simple belief.

i don't really care to alter what you believe, as long as you are a good person, and I have no reason to doubt that you are.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is saying that it is a source of medical evidence, all that has transpired is that
an attempt has been made to describe what took place when blood and water poured
out of Christ after he was stabbed in the side with a Roman spear. Why you are
saying that the Bible is a source of medical evidence i have no idea. Indeed, how else
shall you explain the phenomena of water and blood?

You haven't been keeping up with RJ's going on about a JAMA communication.

Bleeding is to be expected when someone stabs you.

To buy the "he survived" theory you have to be ready to discount any testimony to the contrary. But this is no different that what is required to buy the "he died" theory.