Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Switch89 · 01-31-2009, 07:13 PM

"Jesus' body bleeds after being punctured by the spear, whereas corpses were known not to bleed."

Could I have a medical/biological source for this?

Also, almost everything you've presented is consistent with mythicism.

Joan of Bark · 01-31-2009, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

"Jesus' body bleeds after being punctured by the spear, whereas corpses were known not to bleed."

Could I have a medical/biological source for this?

No. I'm just presenting Kersten's case.

From personal experience: I have seen just one corpse shortly after death (that is, within ten minutes). A young man had been killed after falling from a great height. There was a deep gash in one of his legs, but absolutely no blood had flown from it.

Switch89 · 01-31-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

No. I'm just presenting Kersten's case.

From personal experience: I have seen just one corpse shortly after death (that is, within ten minutes). A young man had been killed after falling from a great height. There was a deep gash in one of his legs, but absolutely no blood had flown from it.

My mother is a nurse and she told me that dead people can bleed.

Analyst · 02-01-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

The Shroud is considered bogus; not "the" shroud." (Really, after 2000 plus years; if we are to believe standard theologically correct time lines pushed by Christians, to expect any shroud to last that long is more than a bit irrational. But as you said: another topic.)

Not only that, who suggests that the way the shroud supposedly wrapped the body had any relationship to a wrapping technique in use, or, that Jews would keep such an item as a shroud?

Analyst · 02-01-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

They had a lot of practice in making torture last as long as possible; therefore it would be unusual for someone to expire after just three hours. Obviously it would be difficult to test this claim scientifically in the modern world.

Actually Colleen Stan, who was abducted and kept prisoner by a criminal sadist (Cameron Hooker) in CA, was suspended by the wrists by him and suffered severe pain and permanent damage as a result of this and other mistreatment.

rlogan · 02-01-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Kersten's argument is that the Romans wanted the victim to suffer as long as possible, so they devised crucifixion as a method that would usually not kill someone quickly. They had a lot of practice in making torture last as long as possible; therefore it would be unusual for someone to expire after just three hours. Obviously it would be difficult to test this claim scientifically in the modern world.

Depends on the method of crucifixion. Some forms caused asphyxiation very quickly.

If you want them to live a long time then nail the legs too, or provide a seat.

Nevertheless - Since there was no Jesus in the first place, it is a moot point

Ken Carman · 02-01-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Carman

....... My guess is that whatever actually happened has been lost amongst attempts to control the message and biblical alteration: intentional and translation errors.

But hundreds of texts have survived about Jesus, born of a virgin.

There is no need to guess.

Jesus was just simply a story of fiction that was believed to be true.

The survival of any text vs. it being purged or burned does not prove validity. I think the story of Jesus that we read now was one forced upon us by orthodoxy" Nicaea and such. There were other versions: some survived in pieces; Gnostic, Marcion, Ebionite... others. Some of the Gnostics believed Jesus not to be human at all; some God entered him: human born of a union between Mary and Joseph, when the skies parted upon baptism.

I think it probable that the historical Jesus did exist, he just doesn't match many of the tales told.

PhilosopherJay · 02-01-2009, 04:41 PM

Hi Toto and Joan of Bark,

Yes, we can be sure that this is not an historical report, but where does it fit?
We know that a standard motif of Roman novels was the apparent separation of lovers by death. One lover seems to die, only to be found alive later by the other lover. Here we have all the necessary elements for such a plot twist: two lovers (Jesus and Mary), a death that is only witnessed from afar by one of the lovers, and a touching reunion scene between Mary and Jesus. Besides the many points already mentioned, note that Jesus' body was put in a suddenly appearing tomb rather than a grave where Jesus would have suffocated overnight.

This points to the fact that in the Biblical gospels we are getting a heavily censored version of an originally quite romantic tale.

The fact is that all four gospels agree on the unique relationship of Mary and Jesus and the Gospels of Mary, Phillip and Thomas confirms the original romantic spirit of that tale.

To not recognize this fact is to continue the censorship of the later anti-heterosexual narrative editor-writers.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is worth reading Robert Price's review of Schonfeld.

Price explained once in a lecture that all of these attempts to find some naturalistic explanation for the Bible go back to a brief period of Protestant Rationalism. The Protestant Rationalists held to two principles: that God made a perfect world with no necessity for any divine intervention, so the world was naturalistic and followed the laws of physics; but that the Bible was an accurate record of history. They therefore spent a lot of time trying to find naturalistic explanations for apparent miracles or other evidence of God intervening in his creation.

The idea that the Bible is an accurate representation of history has been discarded by every modern critic. The idea that gJohn represents an eyewitness account, in particular, is so far off the radar that it is not clear why it should be taken seriously. Bringing the Shroud of Turin, an obvious fake from the 14th century, into the argument clinches the deal.

And note that in the Gospel of Peter, a cross also walks out of the tomb and speaks. The likelihood of this being eyewitness testimony? Only of those eyewitnesses were on some sort of drugs.

Joan of Bark · 02-01-2009, 06:57 PM

... and now I will do the mods job

A NOTE TO MYTHICISTS! Please stop derailing these threads with your Jesus-never-existed-so-the-question-is-meaningless-anyway posts.

We get your point, but we want to examine the history and texts based on the assumption that He did exist.

Transient · 02-01-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

... and now I will do the mods job

A NOTE TO MYTHICISTS! Please stop derailing these threads with your Jesus-never-existed-so-the-question-is-meaningless-anyway posts.

We get your point, but we want to examine the history and texts based on the assumption that He did exist.

Well not sure if you are referring to me, but just in case you are, I am not a mythicist. I am a "wouldn't have the foggiest" or a "wouldn't have a clueist".
People can never be 100% sure of anything in history so they should never be labelled in such a pure mathematical manner.

It's a bit like asking a christian whether wishing that christianity is true sort of leads to a bit of faith or a bit of belief or a bit of hope etc.
All the christians that I have met (a hell of a lot) don't have any more reason to believe in god than I do, they just turn wish inot faith into hope and belief.

Getting back to the topic - it is impossible to separate the topic from whether "Jesus" existed really because when something does not make sense then one conclusion is that it never happened.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-31-2009, 07:13 PM	#11
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	"Jesus' body bleeds after being punctured by the spear, whereas corpses were known not to bleed." Could I have a medical/biological source for this? Also, almost everything you've presented is consistent with mythicism.

02-01-2009, 06:57 PM	#19
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	... and now I will do the mods job A NOTE TO MYTHICISTS! Please stop derailing these threads with your Jesus-never-existed-so-the-question-is-meaningless-anyway posts. We get your point, but we want to examine the history and texts based on the assumption that He did exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.