Resurrected or Resuscitated?

[RebelSnake]

you're going by todays reporting standard and the level of graphic detail the news would provide.

Consider that back then, beating a man to death, stoning, and crucifying happened...maybe not frequently, but somewhat often.

And what's wrong with that? Today's standard of reporting is much more likely to get the facts straight than they would have back then.

[A Person]

you're going by todays reporting standard and the level of graphic detail the news would provide.

No not really, it's just that the miracle of death and resurrection is so fundamental to Christianity that I was surprised how little supporting material there is in the Bible. When you ask "who witnessed Christ's death?" the answer is: the Centurion, Joseph and Nicodemus. There is quite a lot of supporting detail about the crucifixion, but not about the basic question of whether Christ did actually die on the cross.

[Questioner]

So all we know is there was a 'scourging', how severe or unusual it was we don't know. So Dr Davis is simply exercising his imagination. (actually he's giving it a damn good workout) to 'prove' that Jesus must have died.

I quite agree. There seems to be an AWFUL lot of imagining the extent of Christ's injuries. And that whole movie, "The Passion of the Christ" was based on the writings of a man who never witnessed a crucifixion, and frankly, sounded to me like a closet sadist imagining the worst abuse possible.

Of course, other sources have written about what they believe crucified people went through. I'm not an expert in that area, but I would imagine that there could be some records preserved from Roman times that might describe crucifixion practices.

With a crown of thorns, Jesus must have gone through a bunch more trauma most people executed that way. I really don't know if scourging prior to cricifixion was done to all prisoners to be executed on the cross. But if so, that too would have hastened death. Particularly if done to produce the amount of tissue damage Dr. Davis describes. But again, I tend to doubt that. Many people would survive only 3 or 4 hours at most if subjected to that amount of tissue damage and skin denudation on an area as big as the back--and that is not even considering the additional trauma of being crucified.

I would guess they wouldn't have to break very many legs of crucified people who had suffered such a massive skin injury from scourging prior to crucifixion. Many wouldn't even have the strength to push themselves up for a breath, and would suffocate faster rather than slower. And clearly, many had sufficient strength to keep pushing up to breathe for quite a few hours. And that is pretty amazing considering the agonizing pain that nails through the wrists and feet would cause. (Few experts believe that nails were driven through hands. That tissue isn't strong enough to support a body.)

All that argues for the idea that if they were having to break legs in a lot of crucifixions, then the prisoner was not in physical extremis at the time he was nailed to the cross.

[A Person]

There is a fascinating (if gruesome) article with lots of references CRUCIFIXION IN ANTIQUITYJoe Zias
Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology
Israel Antiquities Authority

What surprised me was the number of crucifixions - many many thousands. Including apparently dogs, because they failed to alert the Roman citizens of an attack by Gauls!

The complicated and much debated issue regarding how the individual expired on the cross has generated widespread debate over the years. While many researchers have believed that death occurred as the result of a ruptured heart (Stroud 1874, Whitaker 1935, Wedessow 1978) due to the story in John 19:34 of the water and blood flowing out of the wound, pathologists such as Zugibe (1984) have ruled this out as medically untenable. Other scholars (LeBec 1925, Hynek 1936, Barbet 1937, Modder 1949) have regarded asphyxiation as being the cause of death, however the latest research findings have shown the issue to be more complicated depending upon the manner in which the victim was affixed to the cross. A series of experiments carried out by an American medical examiner and pathologist on college students who volunteered to be tied to crosses showed that if the students were suspended from crosses with their arms outstretched in the traditional manner depicted in Christian art, they experienced no problems breathing (Zugibe 1984). Thus the often quoted theory that death on the cross is the result of asphyxiation is no longer tenable if the arms are outstretched. According to the physiological response of the students, which was closely monitored by Zugibe, death in this manner is the result of the victim going into hypovolemic shock[5] which can be in a manner of hours, or days depending on the manner in which the victim is affixed to the cross. If the victim is crucified with a small seat, a sedile, affixed to the upright for minimum support in the region of the buttocks, death can be prolonged for hours and days. In fact, Josephus reports that three friends of his were being crucified in Thecoa by the Romans who, upon intervention by Josephus to Titus were removed from the crosses and with medical care one survived.

[A Person]

The truth about Jesus death can never be proven now.

So please go on believing that a miracle occurred and that Jesus was brought back to life by direct intervention of himself so that his temporary sacrifice would satisfy himself and wash away all the sins that ever had been made or ever will be made, if it makes you happy.

I think a simpler and more reasonable explanation of the events described in the Bible is that that Jesus survived crucifixion.

And there were many books written that are not part of the Bible.

All books that are not part of the bible are indeed not part of the Bible and yes there are indeed very many of them. Which particular books did you have in mind?

[A Person]

Well this is the Religion & Philosophy Forum - a place for the exploration and discussion of religion, beliefs, and philosophy, which can produce some enlightening and heated debates.

Any exploration upon those lines can be shut down by two statements: "You can't prove it", "Why do you care what I choose to believe" (those aren't the only two, but you seem be be fond of those)

If you don't want to discuss it - fine, don't. If you do, then please discuss the topic.

[RebelSnake]

Seems to have a real problem there doesn't he?

[BecauseHeLives]

Well this is the Religion & Philosophy Forum - a place for the exploration and discussion of religion, beliefs, and philosophy, which can produce some enlightening and heated debates.

Any exploration upon those lines can be shut down by two statements: "You can't prove it", "Why do you care what I choose to believe" (those aren't the only two, but you seem be be fond of those)

If you don't want to discuss it - fine, don't. If you do, then please discuss the topic.

I think what Matt may be getting at here is this. You can't prove God exists but you also can't prove he doesn't. Revelation to one person doesn't mean proof enough for another person. There's no way I can prove to you through my own personal experiences that God exists. Given all of that why would you and others riducule and belittle another's beliefs in Christianity?

[RebelSnake]

Given all of that why would you and others riducule and belittle another's beliefs in Christianity?

Why do you ridicule and belittle other people's beliefs/nonbeliefs?

[RebelSnake]

So please go on believing that a miracle occurred and that Jesus was brought back to life by direct intervention of himself so that his temporary sacrifice would satisfy himself and wash away all the sins that ever had been made or ever will be made, if it makes you happy.

if someone choose to believe that, why would that bother you? Why would you care?

Why does someone questioning these matters bother you so much? Not everyone accepts such things so willingly.

[A Person]

Don't you?

That's the first time you've taken a position. Up until now you've just declared that there can be no discussion either because there can be no proof, or because atheists are not entitled to have an opinion about religion.

[RebelSnake]

My stance is you can't use religious text that you feel is fictional to make a logical, fact-based argument against the existence of God.

In your opinion what could be used to make such an arguement?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

My stance is you can't use religious text that you feel is fictional to make a logical, fact-based argument against the existence of God.

There's a problem here -- many of us don't consider the Bible to be "fictional." It's "mythical," to be sure. And a recording of legends that might have some basis in real history. And there are some spots in it where it appears to be a record of nearly-contemporary events.

But I, for one, don't try to make any arguments based on it "against the existence of God." At best, you can use it to provide a hypothesis for the characteristics of the God it claims to tell about.

To decide if such a being does exist, you must check the claims against facts. That's a completely different matter than what this thread discusses, isn't it?

[Questioner]

The bible can not correctly be characterized as either fictional or mythical. It is the history of the Jewish people as their ancestors reported it.

Clearly some phenomenon were reported in terms of supernatural causation. But so many pieces of the history reported in the bible have been verified through the sciences of archeology, palentology and geology that it is clear this is oral history.

Now, whether the miraculous parts are reports of God's interaction with His chosen people, of deliberate fiction, of misunderstanding of real world events, of exaggeration/mytholization of real events, or even of ancient man's interpretation of events related to visitors from another planet is a matter of belief and faith.

[A Person]

Now we're just going round in circles

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

There's a problem here -- many of us don't consider the Bible to be "fictional." It's "mythical," to be sure.

eh? Mythical is more factual than fictional?

Do you even know what "mythical" means?

[RebelSnake]

There's a problem here -- many of us don't consider the Bible to be "fictional." It's "mythical," to be sure.

eh? Mythical is more factual than fictional?

Many myths have been shown to have a factual basis. Fictional stories are just that, fiction.

[A Person]

The Bible isn't 'a' book - it's a binder.

Parts of the Bible are myth (Genesis) parts historical, parts contrived, parts allegorical, parts fanciful and some parts wrong.

Since it is also used as justification for laws and restrictions, I think it perfectly reasonable to assess the Bible and to discuss its claims.

America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength as a nation. We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.

The church is a God-ordained institution with authority separate from government. We call on Congress to sanction any foreign government that persecutes its citizens for their religion.

http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/ ... docID=2022

[BecauseHeLives]

The bible is 100 percent true and infallable. Factual in all accounts. The full meaning of the bible can not possibly be properly interpreted without the help of the Holy Spirit.

There. I said it.

[A Person]

Factual in all accounts?

17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
..
10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

That's a much more impressive trick than surviving crucifixion.

[BecauseHeLives]

Factual in all accounts?

17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
..
10 And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

That's a much more impressive trick than surviving crucifixion.

Yet its still true. Amazing, eh?

[A Person]

Amazing, but not unexpected.

[BecauseHeLives]

Amazing, but not unexpected.

I'll take an Infallible bible over fallible skeptic's opinions of it.

[A Person]

I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken.

[A Person]

So Mat, we've seen the second part of your 'voice' getting a workout, when will you show us the first part?

Please, if you think I am wrong, let me know where and why you think so, using the 'reason' of which you boast.

Or are all discussions in this forum going to degenerate into schoolyard taunts?