What evidence supports the theory of “resurrection”?

[Zzyzx]

Biblical reports indicate that a god-man was killed and was placed in a tomb for three days under guard, the body was missing when the tomb was opened, and the deceased was reportedly seen alive afterward.

A number of questions arise:

1. Was the person actually dead? How was death verified? Many cases of apparent death are cases of mistaken diagnosis or of deliberate falsification.

2. Would it have been possible for the tomb to have been entered or exited during the three days in question? Guards are not absolutely reliable and have been known to be distracted or bribed. A stone put in place by humans could be moved by humans. Is there any assurance that a substitution or some other slight-of-hand could not have taken place?

3. What impartial persons verified that the god-man lived after “arising from the dead”? Claims of associates, particularly close associates, to have seen the deceased living after death are not the most reliable source of truthful information.

If “resurrection” is not factual, is the basis of Christianity still valid?

[Confused]

Achilles wrote:

Will a person die from crucifixion?
Obviously, there are many historical accounts of individuals dying by means of crucifixion. But how possible is it that someone could survive?

What are the odds you will survive a plane crash, a car crash, cancer etc..... Based on the only "scientific" evidence of the death of Christ:
John 19:31

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=lw195
[center]

It isn't possible for one who was dead greater than 6 hours in an upright position to bleed or release body fluids if punctured in the upper half of the body. If a pleural or cardiac effusion had developed in the course of Christ being crucified, then this would have all settled at the lower half of his body. The process begins immediately upon death and livitity sets in within 4-5 hours depending on environmental factors. Now if Christ was in the body of man, which He would have had to be in order for Him to be considered man, then His body functions are as subject to mans laws as any other mans. Hence, His death would have to mimic mans death. Did it, based on science? One either concludes that He was pierced immediately upon death, or within 4-5 hours after death. Is it possible that He wasn't clinically dead? Why not? Funny how His legs were never cut off. Funny how if He was pierced within 4-5 hours after death, then how is it that both His companions happen to die within the exact same time period.

Overall, from a medical standpoint, there is no evidence in scripture that would conclude that He was clinically dead. The mere fact that He didn't respond with pain when He was stabbed isn't to definative. Reality is that he would have had to go through the normal body functions that lead to death, at best, His heart would have gone into sinus bradycardia at which point His blood pressure would have been so low, responding to pain wouldn't have been possible. Even deep pain or deep tendon reflexes would be so diminished that one likely couldn't pick them up without an EEG or brain blood flow study. After anywhere from 1-24 hours of the bradycardia, His heart would have gone into an arrythmia that would have led to death. Mind you, this whole time, perfusion isn't really attained, hence, livitity would have started to set in in the form of mottled, cold, clammy skin. Is it possible that Christ could have been resuscitated? Likely not, at the very least, the piercing would have led to a punctured lung that would have led to tracheal deviation, increasing cardiac resistance, decreasing cardiac output, further hindering perfusion.

Overall, you are left with either He never died but was miraculously resuscitated (and none of His followers deemed it necessary to report such miraculous medical technology) or He died and never came back to life (physically so that those who witnessed Him couldn't have touched Him in a physical sense).

But how important is it? In reality, He never did die. Had He died, then He couldn't be alive now. But He is. He physically ascended to heaven, not just spititually. This negates death.

In such cases, victims may have avoided immediate asphyxiation, succumbing instead to cardiac failure, blood loss, shock or dehydration. Which of these causes of death predominated would depend to some extent on the state of the victim prior to crucifixion

Of all of these, only shock or cardiac arrest would make the person unresponsive to pain. Heart failure will lead to flash pulmonary edema which would lead to anoxia and ultimately death, but not unresponsiveness until the patient was either in a state of too low O2 (anoxia) or too high CO2 (CO2 narcosis). Dehydration and blood loss had to be extreme and lasting for longer than one day for such things to occur, even so, the symptoms for these don't go from asking for water to death in seconds. They are both very painful deaths that would have entailed extreme body cramping in the case of dehydration or severe blood loss (not usually seen with flesh injuries, this is usually seen after crushing/stabbing injuries or injuries involving damage to an artery rather than venous).

There were a lot of ways to die from crucifixion. With the whipping of Jesus, we would have already lost a lot of blood so blood loss and shock were certainly possibilities, even if asphyxiation wasn't the primary cause.

Not enough blood loss to cause immediate death. All these are negated if you consider the fact He asked for something to drink immediately prior to death.

So it is certain that crucifixion causes death by various methods. By far the slowest of these would be asphyxiation so cardiac arrest, and shock both stop the heart's beating, and blood loss attacks the brain and ultimately leads to shock and stopping of the heart. Asphyxiation on the other hand attacks first the lungs and then reduces the oxygenation in the blood and increases acid in the blood to fatal levels. This process takes much more time than a heart attack.

With this in mind death by asphyxiation for a dog, with about 300cc of breathable air left takes about 7 min. As Jesus body was larger than a dogs, it would have required more oxygen and as his lungs would have been compressed, he would not have had the 300cc of spare O2 to breath, so Jesus situation would have been slightly worse than my example, but it was all I could find

.

Bad example.

The human brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen. Brain damage can occur within 2 minutes without air. So the question is after Jesus passed out, thus causing all of his weight to press on his lungs, how long did he live physically before suffering severe brain damage and death?

And still die so quick. Even brain death usually takes 24-72 hours depending on rate of brain swelling to lead to brain stem infarction that would lead to death.

Well consider that he has already lost a lot of blood, thus lowering the amount of oxygen flowing to his system. He is probably in shock from the nails and whipping. He has also been hanging for hours already and this has already caused him to have a very low oxygen level as asphyxiation doesn't occur all at once but rather over time. Lack of blood, shock and low levels of oxygen would have all hastened his time of death.

Once again, dead right after asking for a drink?

But for arguments sake, lets ignore all three of these factors. How long would it have taken for the guards to 1) notice he was dead, 2) decide to take down the bodies (because the tradition was to leave them up for birds to peck but they were removed early because of Jewish traditions), and then 3) remove the nails and pull him down?

Ok, lets ignore them.

The Roman soldiers would not have been in any hurry to take down the body.

So the question is, would it have taken more than a maximum of 7 minutes (more likely about 3), for all three to die, the Romans to decide to take down the bodies against the tradition, and then to physically climb up, release the bar and the nails and rope, and bring the body down?

I say not a chance. And even if somehow this is what happened, Jesus certainly would have suffered significant brain damage, and physical damage to his body, leaving him a cripple. He certainly could not have appeared strong and able, if he survived. But I'll get more into this later.

[Zzyzx]

We have no outside verification these incidence actually happened. It is, however, evidence of at least one Christian groups beliefs.

Exactly. "evidence of at least one Christian groups beliefs". That is ALL that is supported by independent evidence -- evidence of what a group believes (not knows, believes, not can support, only "believes" -- and one can believe anything, including Leprechauns and fairies.

[Goose]

The thing is that most of Suetonius can be verfied. Those 'gossipy' parts that Suetonius can be viewed at what the gossip mill (common people) thought about the leaders.

You are changing your tune with Suetonius. Earlier you said you take him with a grain of salt:

I take the '12 Ceasars' by Suetonius with a grain of salt because of the supernatural claims in there too (the healing of blind and lame by Vespian, the angels coming down to light Julius Ceasars pyre).

Now you are saying because he can be verified with another source that his work is acceptable. Is this correct? Now who would we verify Suetonius with? Tacitus or Pliny perhaps? Are they or any other source unbiased and 100% reliable? Or are they basically the same as Suetonius in those respects?

Also, "most" is a word used to give your statement the perception of added weight. But you'd need to go through every claim, statement and event of Suetonius to demonstrate this. I could make the same claim about the NT.

Another point is that we are looking at 'evidence for the ressurrection'. All we have is claims that several of the sources are copied from the first source. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, so of course there will be some kind of agreement there.

This accusation is of course based upon a theory that they borrowed and were not there to witness events or interact with those that had. It is again based upon speculation. At any rate, I personally don't see a problem with the writers being aware of each other's work. Or even using each other or a primary source as a reference or memory jogger.

Even if you want to see Mark as the primary source for Matthew and Luke, you still must contend with Mark, John and the reports of Paul given to him by the apostles. That's three sources confirming the burial of Jesus, an excellent number of attestations to an event by ancient standards.

However, that is merely relaying a statement of faith that is central to the late first century early second century christian beliefs (well, the group that won out politically at least). To use the Bible as evidence that the BIble is correct is circular, particularly with the use of the supernatural.

It would be circular if I were to say the Bible is correct because it comes from the Bible. That's not what I'm saying. Don't forget, there was no "Bible" at the time these writings were being produced and circulated. So, in a sense they are independent books. The authors, however, may have been aware of each other's writings just as Suetonius would have likely been aware of other Roman writers. If we were to put all Roman writers into one volume and then use them to verify one another, would that be circular? After all, they usually had a bias in favour of the Empire, yes? And remember, we are NOT using the supernatural claims of the Bible AS evidence. We are looking for evidence that historians, using a standard methodology, would accept as reasonably solid facts.

We have no outside verification these incidence actually happened.

Well, we have now come full circle back to the "outside sources/verification" request. I think that is my que to end things on this subject with you, goat.

http://www.bookshaker.com/images/backpage-happy.jpg

It is, however, evidence of at least one Christian groups beliefs.

Yes it is. And you need to deal with the evidence presented and treat it fairly, not try to simply sweep it under the rug because you don't like it. That is all the Christian asks; a fair treatment of the evidence.

You can start with achilles's post on page 2.

[Goat]

The thing is that most of Suetonius can be verfied. Those 'gossipy' parts that Suetonius can be viewed at what the gossip mill (common people) thought about the leaders.

You are changing your tune with Suetonius. Earlier you said you take him with a grain of salt:

I take the '12 Ceasars' by Suetonius with a grain of salt because of the supernatural claims in there too (the healing of blind and lame by Vespian, the angels coming down to light Julius Ceasars pyre).

Now you are saying because he can be verified with another source that his work is acceptable. Is this correct? Now who would we verify Suetonius with? Tacitus or Pliny perhaps? Are they or any other source unbiased and 100% reliable? Or are they basically the same as Suetonius in those respects?

Also, "most" is a word used to give your statement the perception of added weight. But you'd need to go through every claim, statement and event of Suetonius to demonstrate this. I could make the same claim about the NT.

Another point is that we are looking at 'evidence for the ressurrection'. All we have is claims that several of the sources are copied from the first source. Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, so of course there will be some kind of agreement there.

This accusation is of course based upon a theory that they borrowed and were not there to witness events or interact with those that had. It is again based upon speculation. At any rate, I personally don't see a problem with the writers being aware of each other's work. Or even using each other or a primary source as a reference or memory jogger.

Even if you want to see Mark as the primary source for Matthew and Luke, you still must contend with Mark, John and the reports of Paul given to him by the apostles. That's three sources confirming the burial of Jesus, an excellent number of attestations to an event by ancient standards.

However, that is merely relaying a statement of faith that is central to the late first century early second century christian beliefs (well, the group that won out politically at least). To use the Bible as evidence that the BIble is correct is circular, particularly with the use of the supernatural.

It would be circular if I were to say the Bible is correct because it comes from the Bible. That's not what I'm saying. Don't forget, there was no "Bible" at the time these writings were being produced and circulated. So, in a sense they are independent books. The authors, however, may have been aware of each other's writings just as Suetonius would have likely been aware of other Roman writers. If we were to put all Roman writers into one volume and then use them to verify one another, would that be circular? After all, they usually had a bias in favour of the Empire, yes? And remember, we are NOT using the supernatural claims of the Bible AS evidence. We are looking for evidence that historians, using a standard methodology, would accept as reasonably solid facts.

We have no outside verification these incidence actually happened.

Well, we have now come full circle back to the "outside sources/verification" request. I think that is my que to end things on this subject with you, goat.

http://www.bookshaker.com/images/backpage-happy.jpg

It is, however, evidence of at least one Christian groups beliefs.

Yes it is. And you need to deal with the evidence presented and treat it fairly, not try to simply sweep it under the rug because you don't like it. That is all the Christian asks; a fair treatment of the evidence.

You can start with achilles's post on page 2.

And you may start to give us why we should give the bible special treatment about the extrodinary cliams of someone coming back from the dead , and rising to heaven. I rather suspect you won't accept any similar stories from another religion.

As for Achilles' post, he did establish that the Romans would cruxify just about anybody at any time. That was never an issue. He did not deal with the Jewish law that prohibited trials and executions during the sabbath and during the high holy days. He also immediately went into ciruclar reasoning when it came to the tomb.

Let us assume, for arguements sake, that we have sufficent evidence that Jesus existed, and was actually executed on passover by the romans. Except for some statements of faith written down decades after the fact, there is no evidence of a 'ressurrection'. Yes, I know there is a hole in the ground that is reputed to be the empty tomb. Then again, there is a saint in Spain whose healing hand is supposed to work miracles. THere are 11 of these left hands, all from the same saint, in various churches in spain. Anybody can make a claim.. it doesn't mean it is true.

[achilles12604]

Your style of discussion / debate is a refreshing change from the emotionalism and dishonorable debate tactics typical of “offensive defense” and “shuck and jive” and personal condemnation – with which I am soooooo familiar in forum discussions whenever religious assertions are challenged.

It must be distressing for you to observe the ignorant, dishonest and emotional “defenses” frequently put forth by strident religionists when their public statements are challenged.

I do not disagree with your conclusion that the Jews would have wanted Jesus killed (provided there was such a person in reality). A great messiah would have threatened their existing theocratic hierarchy.

*sigh*

Yes. . . yes indeed. Often I find myself battling Christians more than non-christians. Actually I should correct this statement. I used to do this. Now, I pick and choose my battles very carefully.

My disagreement would be on the fundamental level of whether a Jesus Christ actually existed in physical form. I do not doubt that there were early stories about such a character but those could well have been fables describing a mythical or “spiritual” character. But I digress.

There are threads discussing this. I would be interested in the reasoning behind your opinion.

One

Two

Are there accounts from Roman records of a Poneous Pilate condemning a Jesus Christ messiah to death? Absence of such record would not be conclusive evidence against, but presence of such a record would be very strong evidence for the occurrence of such an event. Evidently Roman records from the era are quite complete (though I have no personal knowledge thereof).

Yes there are accounts. BUT (and this is a big but), the source is questioned. I discussed this in my original post. Tiberius records Pilate crucifying Jesus, however he was a Roman historian from about 70 years removed. There are two different possible sources I am aware of. Non-theists assert (in general) that he must have simply been hearing the rumors already being said by christians and wrote this down as "fact" in his recording. I do not believe this view is correct because it goes against every other record we have from tiberius. He was regarded as a first rate historian who always checked his sources. So I believe that he was using actual Roman Records when he wrote about Pilate killing Jesus and we have yet to find (or may never find) those records.

Is there firm evidence of the existence of Poneous Pilate from actual Roman records? Do any such records square with biblical accounts of position and practices?

Yes - - - No

Yes there are teriffic records of Pilate. No these don't square with the biblical portayal. However there are two good reasons why they may not jive.

1) The biblical records were skewed to make the Jews the bad guys and make the Romans look like the good guys.

2) Pilate was under tremendous pressure from Rome. We see that he had good reason to be worried because in 36CE he killed another "messiah" and was immedieately recalled to Rome for disicplinary proceedures. Basically the Jewish rulers were complaining about his tyranical behavior over the last decade or so and Pilate at the time Jesus was tried, was on thin ice.

The second point is supported by historical accounts aplenty. The first one is a theory. Either is fine with me but I tend to think that the second one makes the most sense and doesn't require any reading between the lines or conspiracy theory material.

Your citation of historians from the era is thorough – however, it does indicate a gap of nearly a century before most accounts were written. That agrees with other sources that indicate that most JC accounts were written as the early Christian Church was forming.

Well this is simply a fact. Most of the writings about Jesus didn't begin to form until 70-80 CE. I personally believe Mark was written in 62-63 era and we are sure that Paul's letters are all early like 45-55ish. There are indications that creeds quoted by Paul proceed eariler than his letters but at this point we are making eduacted guesses.

MOST of the writings for Jesus don't appear until a little later like 70s 80s and 90s.

The gnostic movement of the second century pushed forth a whole bunch of "new" Jesus materials but I personally discount these in favor for the gospels we have simply based on dating if nothing else.

I just ran out of time for the moment. I'll get the rest in a little bit.

[achilles12604]

Achilles wrote:

Will a person die from crucifixion?
Obviously, there are many historical accounts of individuals dying by means of crucifixion. But how possible is it that someone could survive?

What are the odds you will survive a plane crash, a car crash, cancer etc..... Based on the only "scientific" evidence of the death of Christ:
John 19:31

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=lw195
[center]

It isn't possible for one who was dead greater than 6 hours in an upright position to bleed or release body fluids if punctured in the upper half of the body. If a pleural or cardiac effusion had developed in the course of Christ being crucified, then this would have all settled at the lower half of his body. The process begins immediately upon death and livitity sets in within 4-5 hours depending on environmental factors. Now if Christ was in the body of man, which He would have had to be in order for Him to be considered man, then His body functions are as subject to mans laws as any other mans. Hence, His death would have to mimic mans death. Did it, based on science? One either concludes that He was pierced immediately upon death, or within 4-5 hours after death. Is it possible that He wasn't clinically dead? Why not? Funny how His legs were never cut off. Funny how if He was pierced within 4-5 hours after death, then how is it that both His companions happen to die within the exact same time period.

Examining the time line, it would appear that Jesus would have been pierced very shortly after fainting. People in that time would not have been able to tell very well the difference between a man who fainted and whose body weight was now compressing his lungs in the fashion the cross causes, and a dead man.

You're the nurse. You tell me.

I read a doctor's evaluation of Jesus death and he explained that during times of asphyxiation, fluids can build up around the heart. When Jesus fainted, these fluids around the heart would have also been released with blood.

Now looking at John's account, isn't it interesting that he mentions "blood and water", rather than "blood".

Like I said, you're the nurse. What is this called when fluids build up around the heart?

Overall, from a medical standpoint, there is no evidence in scripture that would conclude that He was clinically dead. The mere fact that He didn't respond with pain when He was stabbed isn't to definative. Reality is that he would have had to go through the normal body functions that lead to death, at best, His heart would have gone into sinus bradycardia at which point His blood pressure would have been so low, responding to pain wouldn't have been possible. Even deep pain or deep tendon reflexes would be so diminished that one likely couldn't pick them up without an EEG or brain blood flow study. After anywhere from 1-24 hours of the bradycardia, His heart would have gone into an arrythmia that would have led to death. Mind you, this whole time, perfusion isn't really attained, hence, livitity would have started to set in in the form of mottled, cold, clammy skin. Is it possible that Christ could have been resuscitated? Likely not, at the very least, the piercing would have led to a punctured lung that would have led to tracheal deviation, increasing cardiac resistance, decreasing cardiac output, further hindering perfusion.

Granted they couldn't be sure. But I AM sure that Jesus would not have been able to recover and een if he did he certainly wouldn't have been hailed as a risen savior by his followers who were now in hiding. At best they would have taken Jesus in and cared for his wounds as best they could. They certainly wouldn't ahve begun preaching his risen state, especially since Jewish beliefs don't allow for any resurrection except the FINAL resurrection - right Goat?

So the very idea of a risen Christ was foreign and strange to these men. That they would invent this brand new idea and promote it with such ferver immediately following Jesus death, or extream crippling, is hard to explain and very odd.

Overall, you are left with either He never died but was miraculously resuscitated (and none of His followers deemed it necessary to report such miraculous medical technology) or He died and never came back to life (physically so that those who witnessed Him couldn't have touched Him in a physical sense).

Or he died, was buried, and rose on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.

But how important is it? In reality, He never did die. Had He died, then He couldn't be alive now. But He is. He physically ascended to heaven, not just spititually. This negates death.

You lost me.

There were a lot of ways to die from crucifixion. With the whipping of Jesus, we would have already lost a lot of blood so blood loss and shock were certainly possibilities, even if asphyxiation wasn't the primary cause.

Not enough blood loss to cause immediate death. All these are negated if you consider the fact He asked for something to drink immediately prior to death.

But shock and blood loss would have been able to cause fainting right? As shown by various sources, the torture method of the cross was to force people to use nails to pull themselves up the get the pressure off their lung cavity so as to be able to breath. Once a person passed out, the full weight of their body would be pressing in and they would no longer be moving it to get air, effectively causing the CO2 to build.

Granted when Jesus said his last words he probably wasn't dead then. But how long would it have taken for him to die after collapsing and cutting off his ability to inhale?

So it is certain that crucifixion causes death by various methods. By far the slowest of these would be asphyxiation so cardiac arrest, and shock both stop the heart's beating, and blood loss attacks the brain and ultimately leads to shock and stopping of the heart. Asphyxiation on the other hand attacks first the lungs and then reduces the oxygenation in the blood and increases acid in the blood to fatal levels. This process takes much more time than a heart attack.

With this in mind death by asphyxiation for a dog, with about 300cc of breathable air left takes about 7 min. As Jesus body was larger than a dogs, it would have required more oxygen and as his lungs would have been compressed, he would not have had the 300cc of spare O2 to breath, so Jesus situation would have been slightly worse than my example, but it was all I could find

.

Bad example.

Sorry. It was litterally the only one I could find on the net and it gave an approx timeline.

The human brain will die after approximately six minutes without oxygen. Brain damage can occur within 2 minutes without air. So the question is after Jesus passed out, thus causing all of his weight to press on his lungs, how long did he live physically before suffering severe brain damage and death?

And still die so quick. Even brain death usually takes 24-72 hours depending on rate of brain swelling to lead to brain stem infarction that would lead to death.

not that I'm doubting you at all, but you should probably correct the wikipedia entry I used then as it stated 6 minutes for braindeath. I hate wikipedia but every so often it is the only source I can readily find.

Well consider that he has already lost a lot of blood, thus lowering the amount of oxygen flowing to his system. He is probably in shock from the nails and whipping. He has also been hanging for hours already and this has already caused him to have a very low oxygen level as asphyxiation doesn't occur all at once but rather over time. Lack of blood, shock and low levels of oxygen would have all hastened his time of death.

Once again, dead right after asking for a drink?

Once again is fainting more likely?

Ultimately my point was that from the time Jesus fainted and collapsed (ie was no longer strong enough to push up to get air), how long would it have been before he was effectively dead, and beyond any and all help?

Certainly the amount of time it took for his compainions to expire (possibly minutes, possibly much longer), Joseph to go to Pilate and ask for the body (assuming this occured), the guards to decide to allow the body to come down as it violated their SOP, and then remove the nails and crossbar and release the body, was more than enough time without air, especially in Jesus condition, to cause death by any or all means of the cross.

[Confused]

It isn't possible for one who was dead greater than 6 hours in an upright position to bleed or release body fluids if punctured in the upper half of the body. If a pleural or cardiac effusion had developed in the course of Christ being crucified, then this would have all settled at the lower half of his body. The process begins immediately upon death and livitity sets in within 4-5 hours depending on environmental factors. Now if Christ was in the body of man, which He would have had to be in order for Him to be considered man, then His body functions are as subject to mans laws as any other mans. Hence, His death would have to mimic mans death. Did it, based on science? One either concludes that He was pierced immediately upon death, or within 4-5 hours after death. Is it possible that He wasn't clinically dead? Why not? Funny how His legs were never cut off. Funny how if He was pierced within 4-5 hours after death, then how is it that both His companions happen to die within the exact same time period.

Examining the time line, it would appear that Jesus would have been pierced very shortly after fainting. People in that time would not have been able to tell very well the difference between a man who fainted and whose body weight was now compressing his lungs in the fashion the cross causes, and a dead man.

He was crucified in an upright position correct? So how was his body weight compressing his lungs. Regardless, it is safe to assume that no-one could have distinguished the difference between death and someone who was in a temporary coma either due to being drug induced or due to shock. So we can't say with any sense of certainty that scripture is accurate in stating He was dead before He was sealed in the tomb. Now if He was pierced in less than 5 hours after death, then it is conceivable that piercing a pleural effusion could have released the fluids. But I have found nothing in scripture that would lead to the development of an effusion. And the likelihood of livitity taking longer than a couple hours based on the environmental factors seems remote. You also have to consider the fact that it is unlikely his heart just stopped. It is seldom this way. I can't tell you how many times we have taken patients off life support and the last 12-36 hours of unconsciousness before their bradycardia leads to a fatal arrythmia.

I read a doctor's evaluation of Jesus death and he explained that during times of asphyxiation, fluids can build up around the heart. When Jesus fainted, these fluids around the heart would have also been released with blood.

Now looking at John's account, isn't it interesting that he mentions "blood and water", rather than "blood".

Like I said, you're the nurse. What is this called when fluids build up around the heart?

Why would these fluids be released upon fainting? Fluid around the heart is a pericardial effusion. But they pierced his side, not his chest. A patient with a pleural effusion gets a chest tube placed in one of three areas of their sides depending on the effusion or hemo/pneumothorax. A patient with a pericardial effusion/tamponade gets mediastinal tubes placed immediately below the sternum process on the chest. To tap a pericardial effusion from the side, you would first have to puncture and deflate the lung to reach the pericardial sac.

Yes, it is interesting that he mentions blood and water. But considering how many people were stabbed during those times, it is hardly impossible to say that he hadn't seen it with someone who was stabbed who had a pleural effusion.

But how important is it? In reality, He never did die. Had He died, then He couldn't be alive now. But He is. He physically ascended to heaven, not just spititually. This negates death.

You lost me.

If Christ died a mans death, his body died. Decomposition begins immediately. Had He truly died, His body wouldn't have been habitable after 3 days. But not only did He return spiritually, but He returned physically. People physically touched him and he physically ascended to heaven. If He was physically alive, then how could He have physically died?

But shock and blood loss would have been able to cause fainting right? As shown by various sources, the torture method of the cross was to force people to use nails to pull themselves up the get the pressure off their lung cavity so as to be able to breath. Once a person passed out, the full weight of their body would be pressing in and they would no longer be moving it to get air, effectively causing the CO2 to build.

Here is the thing, He passed out in an upright position, hence there was no crushing pressure on His chest. Not until they lowered the cross. Either way, Co2 narcosis isn't going to kill you immediately after requesting a drink. Instead you go unconscious, as you blood pH lowers to cause acidosis you have multi-organ failure, but it happens over hours to days. You'd get the bradycardia with inadequate circulation/perfusion (in which case your blood pressure is barely 50 palpable) and all your blood starts to settle in dependent areas (once again negating the effects of puncturing an upright person in the side and gaining fluids) until the point at which you go into a fatal arrythmia.

Granted when Jesus said his last words he probably wasn't dead then. But how long would it have taken for him to die after collapsing and cutting off his ability to inhale?

Longer than a few minutes or even a few hours.

not that I'm doubting you at all, but you should probably correct the wikipedia entry I used then as it stated 6 minutes for braindeath. I hate wikipedia but every so often it is the only source I can readily find.

It may be referring to a specific type of brain death, but I will look.

Ultimately my point was that from the time Jesus fainted and collapsed (ie was no longer strong enough to push up to get air), how long would it have been before he was effectively dead, and beyond any and all help?

Longer than scripture leads you to believe it took. Scripture says he requested a drink, then died.

[achilles12604]

He was crucified in an upright position correct? So how was his body weight compressing his lungs. Regardless, it is safe to assume that no-one could have distinguished the difference between death and someone who was in a temporary coma either due to being drug induced or due to shock. So we can't say with any sense of certainty that scripture is accurate in stating He was dead before He was sealed in the tomb. Now if He was pierced in less than 5 hours after death, then it is conceivable that piercing a pleural effusion could have released the fluids. But I have found nothing in scripture that would lead to the development of an effusion. And the likelihood of livitity taking longer than a couple hours based on the environmental factors seems remote. You also have to consider the fact that it is unlikely his heart just stopped. It is seldom this way. I can't tell you how many times we have taken patients off life support and the last 12-36 hours of unconsciousness before their bradycardia leads to a fatal arrythmia.

I don't know. I am hardly a doctor.

However, I did provide multiple sources and I don't believe any of them are christian sources. Also, when I place my hands in a similar position, back, to the sides and slightly elevated and towards my back, my own breathing is harder.

Anyhow, I am simply trusting the multiple doctors that I both cited on my first post, as well as have read in the past. Yes some were christians, but not all.

Why would these fluids be released upon fainting? Fluid around the heart is a pericardial effusion. But they pierced his side, not his chest. A patient with a pleural effusion gets a chest tube placed in one of three areas of their sides depending on the effusion or hemo/pneumothorax. A patient with a pericardial effusion/tamponade gets mediastinal tubes placed immediately below the sternum process on the chest. To tap a pericardial effusion from the side, you would first have to puncture and deflate the lung to reach the pericardial sac.

Wouldn't it be fairly simple for a spear to go through a lung and puncture the heart sac? Once withdrawn this would create a fairly massive canal through the body for the fluids to flow down.

Yes, it is interesting that he mentions blood and water. But considering how many people were stabbed during those times, it is hardly impossible to say that he hadn't seen it with someone who was stabbed who had a pleural effusion.

Is there any reason to doubt this particular account? It is at the very least plausible correct?

If Christ died a mans death, his body died. Decomposition begins immediately. Had He truly died, His body wouldn't have been habitable after 3 days. But not only did He return spiritually, but He returned physically. People physically touched him and he physically ascended to heaven. If He was physically alive, then how could He have physically died?

Resurrection.

think of it this way. If God did exist, and he was able to create the universe and authored all life in it, wouldn't reviving a dead man and repairing his body be "child's play?"

Longer than scripture leads you to believe it took. Scripture says he requested a drink, then died.

Granted. But remember that the account is from a person with ZERO medical knowledge. Fainting would look like dying and over the course of the next few hours as everything I mentioned took place, jesus would have expired.

[Goose]

And you may start to give us why we should give the bible special treatment about the extrodinary cliams of someone coming back from the dead , and rising to heaven.

You're not paying attention to what is being said to you and presented. No one is asking for "special treatment" of the extra-ordinary claims in the Bible. Only fair treatment of non-supernatural evidence.

I rather suspect you won't accept any similar stories from another religion.

I'm not going to engage you on this here and take the thread off topic. Feel free to start another thread about this. In fact there is one McCulloch started recently called "Revelation." We can have a go there if you want.

As for Achilles' post, he did establish that the Romans would cruxify just about anybody at any time. That was never an issue. He did not deal with the Jewish law that prohibited trials and executions during the sabbath and during the high holy days. He also immediately went into ciruclar reasoning when it came to the tomb.

Let us assume, for arguements sake, that we have sufficent evidence that Jesus existed, and was actually executed on passover by the romans. Except for some statements of faith written down decades after the fact, there is no evidence of a 'ressurrection'. Yes, I know there is a hole in the ground that is reputed to be the empty tomb. Then again, there is a saint in Spain whose healing hand is supposed to work miracles. THere are 11 of these left hands, all from the same saint, in various churches in spain. Anybody can make a claim.. it doesn't mean it is true.

For now, I'll let achilles address this. He was looking forward to debating his post I think. I'll give it a day or two. If he hasn't noticed it by then, I'll come back and we can continue, OK?

[Goat]

2) Pilate was under tremendous pressure from Rome. We see that he had good reason to be worried because in 36CE he killed another "messiah" and was immedieately recalled to Rome for disicplinary proceedures. Basically the Jewish rulers were complaining about his tyranical behavior over the last decade or so and Pilate at the time Jesus was tried, was on thin ice.

Point. The traditional timeframe for the cruxificion was 3 or 4 years before the
Samaritan massacre. The timeframe according to a combination of Luke and Josephus (if you accept a connection there, or at least a common source) woudl
put it at 36 or 37. Your logic would only work if the traditional timeframe is wrong,
and there is some kind of connection between Antiquties and Luke.

The second point is supported by historical accounts aplenty. The first one is a theory. Either is fine with me but I tend to think that the second one makes the most sense and doesn't require any reading between the lines or conspiracy theory material.

Except, there is no other record of Pilate executing another messanic figure in that time period. It could be that the "jesus" that was refered to by Paul WAS the samaritan messanic figure, and a lot of incorrect details were added on later.

There is very little time period between the samaritan massacre and the removal of Pilate, as you said. There is no records of Yet another messiah being executed.

Maybe there was, but, as I said, no record of it. The samaritan massacre does point out the willingness of Pilate to do executions.

However, let us ASSUME that there was indeed an execution of "Yet another messaih' after the samaritan massacre. How is that evidence of the supernatural event of a ressurection?

Your citation of historians from the era is thorough – however, it does indicate a gap of nearly a century before most accounts were written. That agrees with other sources that indicate that most JC accounts were written as the early Christian Church was forming.

Well this is simply a fact. Most of the writings about Jesus didn't begin to form until 70-80 CE. I personally believe Mark was written in 62-63 era and we are sure that Paul's letters are all early like 45-55ish. There are indications that creeds quoted by Paul proceed eariler than his letters but at this point we are making eduacted guesses.

As for Mark, Iraenius had, in "Against Heresies" , written 'After Peter and John departed, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

Peter 'departed' (i.e. died), supposedly in the year 67, and Iraeinus said it was written after that.

Of course, Iraenius was probably quoting Papais, but that does give the traidtion of Mark being written after 67.




MOST of the writings for Jesus don't appear until a little later like 70s 80s and 90s.

The gnostic movement of the second century pushed forth a whole bunch of "new" Jesus materials but I personally discount these in favor for the gospels we have simply based on dating if nothing else.

I just ran out of time for the moment. I'll get the rest in a little bit.[/quote]