Magus55

Your using the swoon theory, its been rejected and even by common sense its rediculous to think Jesus survived crucifiction, only to get up, move a multi ton stone, travel to town and preach to his Apostles in perfect health... yeah ok

And no you aren't separated from God. You might not care about Him, but he still cares about you and is always around. You wouldn't be able to survive if God weren't with you because he sustains creation.

philechat

Yes I know that. It is the reason why Shakespeare and the Greek tragedy writers are the more "inspired" writers in my opinion than the Gospels writers. For some reason God cannot make them sacred stories more intelligible and instead relies on some secular (and Pagan) authors to give creation the most sublime beauty. Of course I know it.

Could the true God (tm) be one revealed not through the Bible, but through the poetic geniuses of all ages? As far as aesthetic merit goes, I can hardly believe that the Bible is the most inspired book in the entire world. May I call this new god Intellectual Beauty?

(Can't stop my incessent mythmaking. Sorry )

Rhea

consider it clarified. Sorry for sending you off on a wild goose chase. I was speaking figuratively. (as in, "and you think _you_ have it bad," a common phrase which accepts the first as "bad" but is focused on showing what's worse). I frankly forgot I had written that and was quite confused by your "straw man".

My objection is to the claim of "worst ever". I've tried to be clear on that otherwise.

Rhea

No, I don't think so. You state this "sweating blood" thing is incredibly rare. Yes thousands and thousands of people have died deaths where they knew it was coming and/or it took longer, et al. And they didn't sweat blood. I am not saying I'm some super-human or anything. I am just basing this on knowledge of people who have faced similar deaths without sweating blood. Especially those who had faith in an after-life. Again, look to your martyrs.

Again, I am interested in the scripture that describes this. That is that he is taking on sin and that it is painful to him. Not saying it's not there, just saying I'd like to read it.

This suggests we may have a gulf of definitions between us. "Suffering", in my mind is NOT limited to physical inputs. The psychological state is integral. So while it may be "just as painful" it is nowhere near "as much suffering". This is critical to understanding my objection to the claim of "worst kind of suffering known to man"

Sure. And I'd have to reply, "and so?" How does that compare to every NDE that is out there. Was this the worst experience of their lives, did this add "suffering"? Come to think of it, are there ANY terrifying NDEs? I don't know the answer to this question. I've never heard of one. Anyone?

So since Jesus didn't die permanently, as he knew he wouldn't then the death part is kind of a non-suffering additive, isn't it? The only value it has in the miracle-ness of the ordeal, not the suffering of it.

Trivialize the other's suffering such as, calling your own the worst ever you mean? That was the purpose of the analogy. That your religion _does_ trivialize Jake's suffering by claiming that yours is the worst ever. See what I mean?

leading right into your next quote,
Ah, but he is. Or his church is in just such a business. By claiming that his suffering was the worst ever. If Jesus was not in the business of trivializing others' suffering then he shouldn't talk about his suffering, especially not as the worst ever it seems. The resurrection is what is supposed to prove the godhood, not the suffering.

Yet I hear over and over about the suffering. The suffering. The SUFFERING! of Jesus. It was, after all the worst ever known to man. Christians say. Repeatedly. Right? Am I wrong about that?

Ah yes, close. Almost what I'm claiming.

Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but did not many martyrs go to their deaths wordlessly, "in great honor" and etc? Or even smiling and proclaiming their faith? I'm not saying they didn't suffer. I _am_ saying they seemed to cheat their enemies out of "breaking them" on a fairly regular basis. I assume this was done by their incredible faith. I don't _know_ of course. Perhaps they were all crying and crapping themselves, but that's not what history portrays. I could be wrong, of course, but I thought their example was of using their faith to gain near inhuman strength in the face of pain.

Mitigating their suffering, as it were.


I was unaware that it was. I thought it was information played in a courtroom.

Part of what drives this conclusion is the comparatively meaningless analogy in my own life. But it serves to illustrate magnitude to me.

When I go to the dentist, I do not get Novocain. For personal reasons. When the dentist drills my teeth, it hurts just as much as the pain felt by victims of Nazi experiments about pain by dentist drills.

However.
Big, honking huge, gigantic, mondo
HOWEVER....

There is no freaking way I would say that I suffered as much as they did. No FREAKING way. I choose it. I know it will only be a short time. I know I can say "stop" if it gets too bad. I know why it's happening and I am supportive of that reason. I know I will live through it. To compare my "pain" to the pain of those people would be arrogance of the worst heartless kind. It would be pathetic.

Do you see where I'm coming from? With my admittedly trivial comparison, I experience the same comparison of magnitude of difference that Jesus is supposed to have experienced. I don't know what such a person might have felt. But I know what you say his motivations were and I don't see how he could just forget them - if they were real.

Yeah, I read this and I still don't see how even they can call it the worst ever. As was pointed out by others, history records a lot of worse ways. Although there is nothing surprising about any author (including me) using "his" own reality to measure "worst ever".


you wrote to c-o-a-s
It's interesting that you should say this. Off topic, but I have always wondered why Christians, generally speaking (martyrs aside) try to avoid death just as much as people who don't claim to have the "best happiness ever" awaiting them. That's always puzzled me. Given how wonderful heaven is supposed to be, they sure go to just as much trouble as I do to avoid getting there any faster. Curious.

lpetrich

It's a point I've made elsewhere in this site -- where are those whose last words are "See you in Heaven"? Those who take it for granted that they will wake up in Some Other Realm after they die in this world.

Biff the unclean

Chris: From the Journal of the American Medical Association:…
Unfortunately that is not the JAMA article from seventeen years ago, but only it's synopses. The article and the rebuttals that would have followed have long since been discarded. Nor is it the opinion of the American Medical Association but only that of the authors, W.D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel and F. E. Hosmir. Unfortunately the list of their qualifications have been discarded with their article.
So I'll just comment on what we have.

Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials was flogged and was sentenced to death by crucifixion.
There is no historic record of there ever being such a Jesus. For that matter we can't even find Nazareth (the city with that name is named for the town in the NT)
The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock
The scourging described in the NT would not cause appreciable blood loss. In the eighteenth Century British sailor were punished with forty lashes with a cat-o-nine tails. A short whip of nine leather thongs each tipped with a piece of shrapnel. This "cat" was an improvement on the Roman scourge which was the same length as the British but with only one or three thongs. It's thongs were usually tipped with lead beads although some were tipped with sharp pieces of sheep bone. It could leave a nasty welt and maybe scratch you up a bit, but it was no cat-o-nine tails.
as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha.
The sweating blood in the garden the night before would indicate that this person was hysterical
At the site of crucifixion his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes) his feet were nailed to the stipes.
This part is right on.
The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia.
This is undeniably what killed most people who were crucified. However the Gospels are very clear that Jesus crucifixion deviated from the normal procedure. Most importantly his legs weren't broken. It goes out of its way to mention this because of some obscure prophecy or some such who-do. His legs were completely supported. Supported better than they had ever been in his life because they had a big iron spike in their feet. The spike through the feet would have prevented the normal asphyxia that accompanies normal crucifixion. This is what would have allowed him to say all the things he is credited with saying while on the cross. People dying from asphyxia consistently refrain from conversation.

Jesus death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier s spear into his side.
Except again the NT goes out of it's way to mention that this doesn't draw blood. It says "water." The traditional wound from the lance of Longchamps isn't in a vital organ.

Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.
No, just the interpretation of the three authors who had no historical evidence what so ever to go on.

We moderns, who aren't willing to sacrifice facts for faith can also point to experimental evidence. It seems that the Philippines have more than their fair share of religious nut cases. Every year a few of the are crucified following the NT step by step. Only rarely does one of these lunatics die because of their religious zeal.

And my question to you is, why should I accept your opinion on the matter as more credible than the voice of the American Medical Association?
And my question is are you representing this nonsense ask " the voice of the American Medical Association" and not just it's authors because you are ignorant of the way the JAMA works, or are you trying to fool the rest of us?


this website which has the article from the JAMA, to include diagrams and descriptions and lots of references.
Unfortunately the frugal site has some errors in it, and it will not load up on my Mac past it's background of the word Jesus repeated again and again. I'm stuck with what you have placed here, so I'll limit my comments to that

THE LIFE and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth have formed the basis for a major world religion (Christianity), have appreciably influenced the course of human history, and, by virtue of a compassionate attitude toward the sick, also have contributed to the development of modern medicine.
A statement of faith.
The eminence of Jesus as a historical figure and the suffering and controversy associated with his death
Another statement of faith.
have stimulated us to investigate, in an interdisciplinary manner, the circumstances surrounding his crucifixion. Accordingly, it is our intent to present not a theological treatise but rather a medically and historically accurate account of the physical death of the one called Jesus Christ.
I assume, from the synopsis, that they go on to tell why a person would die from being crucified.
I would be interested to know if they tell how they are so cock sure Jesus died when the crucifixion wasn't completed (legs), when, contrary to custom, he was removed from the cross after a very shot time, wrapped in bandages. And when he turns up alive and wounded thirty-six hours later.

With your medical background, you should be able to understand how crucifixion worked after reading that article.
I know how it worked already.
I know that a person who is in shock can look pretty dead. But I also know that if you get up again and visit your friends it means that the reports of your death were greatly exaggerated.
It's called "being left for dead," it's not called "dead." Used to happen all the time before we had the equipment to check. That's why we Irish have a wake. It's called a "wake" because someone has to be awake with the body for three days to make sure that there is no sign of life.
That's what's happening in the Gospel stories, the women are going back to check on the body and fix it up. That's what they are doing at the tomb. That's why you can open the door to the tomb from both sides.

I know you want this to be magic. I assume that that is the reason you ignore questions about what if this were anyone except Jesus. Because you still hear stories about people who regain consciousness while on the morgue slab, or groan in their coffins. Never do you consider these to be stories of miracles. Never do you declare that the person had conquered death.
Someone suffers sever physical trauma, is declared dead, but later regains consciousness you assume that the one who declared them dead made a mistake.
But not with the Jesus story. With the Jesus story you suspend your disbelief.

:banghead:

Yellum Notnef

You might want to talk to Brother Radorth about this. He's very impressed with this theory and puts Durant on a pedestal above all other skeptics.

You haven't noticed? It's all he talks about and says he's glad Durant has fallen out of favor among skeptics as the argument is so powerful that it actually causes him discomfort.

Please speak to Brother Radorth about this asap so he might be able to put these doubts out his mind and finally get some sleep.

Biff the unclean

Magus55: Your using the swoon theory, its been rejected and even by common sense its rediculous to think Jesus survived crucifiction, only to get up, move a multi ton stone, travel to town and preach to his Apostles in perfect health... yeah ok
You are calling it "swoon" in a vain attempt to trivialize common sense. Swoon sounds so maidenly. No, I'm talking about the "hypovolemic shock" theory, the "misdiagnosis" theory. It's only rejected by those who have the "Magic Jew" theory. The "I'm not dead any more, I feel better, Monty Python" theory.
Jesus would not have survived crucifixion had the crucifixion been completed. But the Gospels say that it wasn't. No broken legs, no being left on the cross, only half a crucifixion which left him half dead.
The multi-ton stone exists only in the imagination of painters. The Jews used a small thin sandstone slab (around this time it started to be made circular for easy movement) meant only to keep scavengers out. (Jews weren't burried with possessions so there was nothing to tempt grave robbers) Or do you think that Mary M and the women who came to clean the body brought a bulldozer with them?
As for Jesus being in perfect health the gospel says that his appearance was so changed that his best friends didn't know him. And that people (Thomas) could stick their fingers in the gaping holes in his hands…not my idea of perfect health.
Also notice that when it was realized in the 1960's that the Romans didn't put nails through the hands, and in fact couldn't keep a body suspended that way, the spikes were quietly moved to Jesus wrists. Even though the Gospels are clear that it was the palms of his hands.
Funny, that Jesus could magically come back from the dead but couldn't patch a few holes. Must have made walking on water difficult with feet that leaked.

And no you aren't separated from God. You might not care about Him, but he still cares about you and is always around. You wouldn't be able to survive if God weren't with you because he sustains creation.
So Biff the Atheist isn't separated from God but Jesus H. Christ was.

It's always entertaining to talk to Xians. You never know what wacky thing they are going to say because they make it all up as they go along.

Rhea

I want this as my new sig line...

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Magus55
You might not care about Him, but he still cares about you and is always around.

Around doing what, precisely? How does he sustain creation? Please elaborate on which laws of physics, chemistry and biology would not work without god, and the implications this has for the general conditions of hell.