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

Originally posted by Agerg
please explain the illogical part

Surviving a Roman crucifixian.

Originally posted by whodey
Surviving a Roman crucifixian.

Again...not my bloody claim! I NEVER SAID THAT...I HAVEN'T EXPRESSED MY SUPPORT FOR IT!!! LOOK! I SAID:

I tend to go with the assumption *someone* got crucified, perhaps a wise person that rubbed some people up the wrong way (and probably died); any witnesses present would have witnessed some poor sap get shafted by the romans, and given his charisma and wise words, they might have exaggerated their stories about him and then all the garbage about Jesus fulfilling some damned prophecy and resurrections etc.. were made up later.

It's the second post - to the left you'll see an avatar, WITH MY FORUM NAME ABOVE IT!!!

Originally posted by whodey
Surviving a Roman crucifixian.

It is relatively easy to construct a logical scenario in which Jesus survived the crucifixion. It flies in the face of deeply held, vitally important beliefs.

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?

He got pissed the night before, but his miracle only half worked - half water, half wine. Q.E.D.

The magic ran out when Judas found out about yeast. 😏

Originally posted by JS357
It is relatively easy to construct a logical scenario in which Jesus survived the crucifixion. It flies in the face of deeply held, vitally important beliefs.

Yes, the ones which hide you of your own realistic fears!

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
Yes, the ones which hide you of your own realistic fears!

-m.

I'm not professing belief that a secular explanation is the "truth." I am a fan of "what if" counter-factual fiction.

My approach to this kind of discussion is like this: How would a writer concoct a story by which Jesus appears to his disciples, after he is supposed to have died on the cross, and that would deal with the other things that are reported, without having the story include divine intervention? What statements in the Bible need to be addressed, and can they be addressed adequately? At least in my view, this is can be done by people of any faith or no faith.

Having a plausible secular story would not mean it is true or that the religious story is false.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There were some doctors here in the USA that considered the historical
information presented by the Holy Bible concerning the physical death of
Jesus the Christ. After considering all the torture Jesus is reported to
have received from the Roman soldiers and the fact that water poured
out with the blood when the Roman soldier stuck Jesus with a spear, t r not. But I thought you might be interested in what medical
science has to say about it.

delete

Originally posted by Agerg
Again...not my bloody claim! I NEVER SAID THAT...I HAVEN'T EXPRESSED MY SUPPORT FOR IT!!! LOOK! I SAID:

[i]I tend to go with the assumption *someone* got crucified, perhaps a wise person that rubbed some people up the wrong way (and probably died); any witnesses present would have witnessed some poor sap get shafted by the romans, and given his charisma and ...[text shortened]... i]

It's the second post - to the left you'll see an avatar, WITH MY FORUM NAME ABOVE IT!!!

Perhaps he is confusing you with me?

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 ...”

yes there is! That's if you have at least some trust what the gospels say! According to them, there were WITNESSES that he was alive sometime after he was put in the tomb. Assuming that part was not made up (which it might have been, I wouldn't rule out that possibility completely) , how is that NOT evidence!?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....and the fact that WATER poured
out with the blood when the Roman soldier stuck Jesus with a spear, ...” (my emphasis)

what on earth are you/they talking about? The above makes no biological sense so I wish you would show your source.

What kind of “WATER” are we talking about here above? -I mean, from inside with bodily organ? -the lungs ...[text shortened]... e was ...” (my emphasis)

what? Without the body? Again, I would like you to give the source.

I'm not vouching for its veracity, but at

http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

it says: "Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34)."

Originally posted by whodey
Surviving a Roman crucifixian.

Why would that be “illogical” when a person can conceivably be taken down from a cross AFTER he becomes unconscious but BEFORE he/she dies?
Tell me the logical contradiction here. It is even medically possible to survive a spearing of the chest.

Originally posted by JS357
I'm not vouching for its veracity, but at

http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-water-Jesus.html

it says: "Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fl ...[text shortened]... heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34)."

I see. Thanks for the clarification. That explains the bit about the "water".

“...This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel...”

Just a thought but, if he wasn't dead when he was speared, couldn't that spearing actually relieved the pressure of pericardial fluid by letting most of it out and thus enabling him to breath and his heart to beet normally and thus recover?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericardium
“...In between the parietal and visceral pericardial layers there is a potential space called the pericardial cavity. It is normally lubricated by a film of pericardial fluid. Too much fluid in the cavity (such as in a pericardial effusion) can result in pericardial tamponade (compression of the heart within the pericardial sac). ...”

-so if too much pericardial fluid causes compression of the heart within the pericardial sac then surely being speared to let out most of that pericardial fluid out would release that compression of the heart?
-just a thought.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Perhaps he is confusing you with me?

He's certainly confusing me with you; but he's not the first either. Robbie Carrobie did it, and the post whodey responded to here was my response to Robbies comment on my first post (where he described it as illogical); it winds me up when people do this - your suggestion is not "illogical" anyway, but the least these fundies can do when criticising my arguments is to actually have the courtesy of aiming at *my* arguments when they feel like taking pot-shots at *me*.
Moreover, that either of them got so far down the first page of this thread to see the post whodey responded to here suggests they also saw my post.

Originally posted by Agerg
He's certainly confusing me with you; but he's not the first either. Robbie Carrobie did it, and the post whodey responded to here was my response to Robbies comment on my first post (where he described it as illogical); it winds me up when people do this - your suggestion is not "illogical" anyway, but the least these fundies can do when criticising my argume ...[text shortened]... page of this thread to see the post whodey responded to here suggests they also saw my post.

To be honest, I have a couple of times made the same kind of mistake to them.
I think the problem is we/they all look alike 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
To be honest, I have a couple of times made the same kind of mistake to them.
I think the problem is we/they all look alike 🙂

yes its true all atheists look like Spok, have no emotions and play chess on a three
tiered 3d board. Now what about my medical evidence, insurmountable i presume.