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

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

I just said to JS357 :

“...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. ...” (my post)

so I would not say it is conclusive that he would have been killed -unless you can give me a source that debunks the above suggestion?

Also, what was your source of your medical evidence?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I just said to JS357 :

“...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 vi ...[text shortened]... rce that debunks the above suggestion?

Also, what was your source of this medical evidence?

it did not state simply fluid, but did it? The scriptures state water and blood, now what
are the chances of the pericardial layers being ruptured by the upward thrust of a
Roman spear (barbed) and a major vessel not being breached? the Bible does stated
that water and blood ensued from the wound?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
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 ...[text shortened]... of that pericardial fluid out would release that compression of the heart?
-just a thought.

I don't know about the medical issues. Here's one way I think the concoctor of the secular survival story would react, instead of accepting that the spearing occurred or if it did, was fatal:

I've read that John is the only Bible source that mentions the spearing, even though the writer apparently had access to the other canonical gospels or their precursors. The divinity of Jesus was becoming more and more important to the nascent faith, the sacrifice followed by resurrection from the dead was an important verification of this. The writer must have known spearing was commonly used to verify or ensure death, and also would have known about fluids being commonly seen when the spearing was fatal. How we know for SURE that resurrection from the dead really happened, if spearing wasn't done? God would have had that happen. So by the time of John, it was apparent that this item had been left out of the collected scriptures and needed to be included, complete with fluids rushing out. It is such a straightforward. Then John drives home its importance: "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."

Originally posted by JS357
I don't know about the medical issues. Here's one way I think the concoctor of the secular survival story would react, instead of accepting that the spearing occurred or if it did, was fatal:

I've read that John is the only Bible source that mentions the spearing, even though the writer apparently had access to the other canonical gospels or their precurso ...[text shortened]... is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."

It is a common tactic of critics to suppose this an that and theorize
what might have happened, rather than accept whst really did happened
no matter what they are criticising. Maybe it gives them a felling of
self-importance to be able to come up with ideas on what might of
happened rather than just accept the facts presented.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is a common tactic of critics to suppose this an that and theorize
what might have happened, rather than accept whst really did happened
no matter what they are criticising. Maybe it gives them a felling of
self-importance to be able to come up with ideas on what might of
happened rather than just accept the facts presented.

Don't be so down on them. They can't help it. 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is a common tactic of critics to suppose this an that and theorize
what might have happened, rather than accept whst really did happened
no matter what they are criticising. Maybe it gives them a felling of
self-importance to be able to come up with ideas on what might of
happened rather than just accept the facts presented.

“...rather than just accept the facts presented. ...”

how do we know that what is presented here ARE the facts?
Mere say-so is not evidence that those are the facts for there would be no logical contradiction in much of what is presented here simply being false (either intentionally or unintentionally false) .

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...rather than just accept the facts presented. ...”

how do we know that what is presented here ARE the facts?
Mere say-so is not evidence that those are the facts for there would be no logical contradiction in much of what is presented here simply being false (either intentionally or unintentionally false) .

Maybe, that is why faith is important. You could say the same of any
source of historical information. If you do not have faith in the accuracy
and truth of the historical source, then why accept any of it as fact?
Without this faith, the history book you read in school could be mere
imaginations of someone. You must make that decision to accept any
of it as fact. So it is up to you to decide. I have decided to take it as
eyewitness historical fact.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, that is why faith is important. You could say the same of any
source of historical information. If you do not have faith in the accuracy
and truth of the historical source, then why accept any of it as fact?
Without this faith, the history book you read in school could be mere
imaginations of someone. You must make that decision to accept any
...[text shortened]... fact. So it is up to you to decide. I have decided to take it as
eyewitness historical fact.

Do you have faith that John was present at every location mentioned in John, at the time each event recounted in the gospel, occurred, and that he remembered every event and word spoken that he years later, wrote down verbatim? When do you think John was written?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, that is why faith is important. You could say the same of any
source of historical information. If you do not have faith in the accuracy
and truth of the historical source, then why accept any of it as fact?
Without this faith, the history book you read in school could be mere
imaginations of someone.

And most of us remain highly skeptical of all history books - especially those presented in schools as they are frequently government propaganda.

Faith in a history books accuracy should be based on something other than faith or an arbitrary decision to accept it as fact.

You must make that decision to accept any of it as fact.
Sometimes corroborating evidence helps to confirm the likelihood that something is fact, though it is virtually impossible to prove without a doubt that a history book is factual. So the wisest course of action is to merely accept it as 'probably fact' (if the evidence suggests that to be the case).

I have decided to take it as eyewitness historical fact.
Are we talking about the whole Bible here or just parts of the gospels? What do you mean by 'eyewitness historical fact'? Do you believe the writers were eye witnesses or that the information was passed on from eye witnesses or that God inspired the writers (and God was the eye witness)?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, that is why faith is important. You could say the same of any
source of historical information. If you do not have faith in the accuracy
and truth of the historical source, then why accept any of it as fact?
Without this faith, the history book you read in school could be mere
imaginations of someone. You must make that decision to accept any
...[text shortened]... fact. So it is up to you to decide. I have decided to take it as
eyewitness historical fact.

“....If you do not have faith in the accuracy
and truth of the historical source, then why accept ANY of it as fact? ...” (my emphasis)

No, I do not accept ANY of it as fact by its mere say-so.
I do not ever rely on “faith” that some source of historical information is accurate and that is regardless of whether that said 'historical information' is from religious scriptures or some other written source. I would always demand some additional evidence/reasoning to back-up that written source before I can say and believe that I can be certain that it states fact and NEVER use faith!


“....Without this faith, the history book you read in school could be mere
imaginations of someone. ….”

which parts of which ones?
For those claims made by a history book not backed-up by some evidence nor backed-up by more than one independent source and is mere say-so, I would have NO faith in its accuracy! Instead, I would at best be highly uncertain of its accuracy and, at worse, if the claim seems absurd to me, certain that it is false!
For those claims made by a history book that ARE backed-up by some evidence or backed-up by more than one independent source, no “faith” may be required to rationally believe it depending on the strength of evidence.
Either way, I would never use faith.

“... I have decided to take it as eyewitness historical fact...”

how do you know it accurately always gives the actual eyewitness accounts or how often does it do so? ...oh, hang on, I think you have already answered that; “faith” ? ( or should I say “blind faith” which is the same thing )
The problem with that is that incredible claims require incredible evidence and mere say-so is not incredible evidence and faith is not even evidence!!!



you originally said “...rather than just accept the facts presented. ...” as if those “facts” presented are known to be the facts and then I asked “..how do we know that what is presented here ARE the facts? …” and now you appear to say I need “faith”to believe it, which is just another way of saying you and I don't know that what is presented here are the facts….which begs the question, when you originally said “...rather than just accept the facts presented. ...” , why do you demand that I should “just accept” that what is presented as “the facts” as if those are known facts?
-I mean, regardless of whether what is presented is actually true, there would be a logical contradiction in it requiring “faith” to believe it AND it being a known fact.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I used to think the part about the resurrection of Jesus was probably simply made up as opposed to some people actually believing they witnessed it but then I saw what I believed to be a non-biased (I mean not biased towards religion) documentary (sorry, can't remember which one) with historical analysts that explained several reasons why that part, neuver. ...”

-I think that is similar enough to my basic theory.

Any opinions?

======================================
...isn't it entirely possible, or even probable, that the charismatic person known today as "Jesus" only passed out/lost consciousness/fainted/etc., and since Golgotha CSI wasn't around to set the record straight, he was hastily and erroniously declared dead and whisked off by (the) Disciples or whomever, that had a vested interest in seeing him survive?
=============================================

The hardened Roman soldiers were skilled executioners. They should have known whether those under their torture and killing machinery were dead or not.

The enemies of Jesus who went to Pilate and warned him that this man had made predictions that He would rise from the dead, had a vested interest in knowing that He was really dead.

The theory has to assume that Jesus knew beforehand that He would have to "swoon" or fake death. While He "planned" this fraud He predicted His death and resurrection to His followers.

"From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jersalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day be raised." (Matt. 16:21)

Not only Jesus foretold of His death and resurrection, the antagonistic high priest at the time prophesied of the sure death of one man for the whole nation. It is evident from the Old Testament examples like Balaam, that God could prophesy through a sinful prophet. God spoke through the extremely character flawed and financially greedy Balaam. God could use the unsympathetic high priest to prophesy that Jesus would indeed DIE.

"But a certain one of them [Pharisees] Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, You know nothing at all, Nor do you take account of the fact that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people and that not the whole nation perish.

But this he did not say from himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation." (John 11:49-51)

"And led [Him] away to Annas first; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas who was high priest that year. Now it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to DIE for the people." (John 18:13,14 my emphasis)

Your theory calls for Caiaphas being in on the plot by pretending to speak God's prophecy that Jesus would DIE." That is unlikely to the extreme, that the high priest laid the ground work for such a ruse , intentionally and cooperatively with Jesus.

Can you see Jesus and Caiaphas plotting together to make the Jews and Romans expect that Jesus would be put to death ?


==========================
Perhaps they even knew he was still alive (maybe he winked at Mary) and said things like, "Yeah, he was up there (how many?) hours, and nobody has ever made it that long before, he's gotta be dead."
===================================

That is not what happened. They executioners were surprised that He was dead whereas the other two men were still hanging on to life. The skilled executioners were in the practice of breaking the legs of those hanging on a cross. Their bodies would collapse and they would sufficate and put the torture to an end.

Jesus, rather than typically fighting to stay alive, apparently submitted to the death, and His legs did not require to be broken to conclude the horrible ordeal.

"After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had now been finished and so that the Scripture might be fulfilled,said, I thirst ... Then when Jesus had taken the vinegar, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and delivered up His spirit.

Then the Jews, since it was the day of preparation and so that the bodies might not remain on teh cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath day was a great Sabbath), requested of Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man and of the other man who had been crucified with Him. But coming to Jesus, when they saw that He had already died, they did not break His legs;

And one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water." (John 19:28-34)

"And Pilate marveled that He had already died, and calling to [him] the centurion, he questioned him whether He had been dead long.

And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph." (Mark 15:44-46)

The Roman governor is surprised that Jesus has died and examines the centurion as to how long Jesus has been dead. This was a six hour ordeal. The cruel torture of crucifixion forced a man to involuntarily keep himself alive in spite of the agony.

Jesus had submitted and collapsed in death and only needed verification by having the Roman soldier pierce his heart with a spear. The other two men had to have their torment concluded by the breaking of thier legs to cause final suffication.

This is the agony that Jesus went through for you Andrew. It was your sins which caused Him to go through this to save you, me too. Because Christ is God His death was personal to each sinner as Paul indicates:

"... the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20)

But this sacrificial love you charge as an elaborate hoax ?


======================================
to distract the rest of the mob that would otherwise have finished the job. (The shock of the blood loss could also have caused his body to go into a "survival" mode, slowing bodily functions such as blood circulation and respiration, allowing him to "last longer" than those malfactors.)
================================

He didn't last longer though. As said above, Jesus submitted to death sooner then the others so as to cause the Roman Governor to marvel and the centurion to make sure He was dead.

And your fancy explanation calls for Jesus to have planned this all along because He knew He came to die. And He predicted to everyone that He would die and rise from the dead.

==============================
So, everyone in the know went along with the ruse and Jesus winds up on a slab in the tomb with perhaps some frankincense and a little ventilator shaft out the back. Saturday, they all work out the Resurrection script and Sunday Jesus cops a David Copperfield/ bin Laden maneuver. ...”
===================================

And Thomas goes along by pretending to insist on the most scientific and imperical proof that this Man hung on a Roman cross, was indeed come back to life ?

" ... Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails and put my hand into His side, I will by no means believe." (John 20:25)

This was a ruse too? They got together and assigned the role of the last doubting one to Thomas ?

You would also have to involve the prophet Isaiah, some 800 years earlier, in the plot. For his very clear prophecy in Isaiah 53 was that the Suffering Servant would pour out His soul unto DEATH for the redemption of sinners.

"He will see [the fruit] of the travail of His soul, And He will be satisfied; By the knowledge of Him, the righteous One, My Servant, will make the many righteous, And He will bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will divide to Him a portion with the Great, and He will divide the spoil with the Strong;

Because He poured out His life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors,

Yet He alone bore the sin of many and interceded for the trangressors." (Isaiah 53:11,12)

Jesus also taught His disciples that some of them would be put to death for His name sake, which thing certainly happened:

" ... and they will put some of you to death" (Luke 21:16)

It is hard to figure that His disciples would be willing to die for real if they had been asked for such devotion by One who had faked dying. Stephen, for instance, willingly submitted to death by stoning. He declared, as the rocks were killing him, that he saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God to honor this first martyrdom.

It makes little sense that Stephen, knowing that his Master had not really died, was now honoring his actual death to perpetuate a fraud on the world.