Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[One Bad Pig]

Assumption.

That is what this Christian tale consists of: a kernel of truth (a crucifixion), hearsay, and many, many assumptions.

You're projecting again, Gary.

[Gary]

Then did he survive crucifixion?

No. I think Jesus died. The Romans were experts at crucifixions. The odds that they let one man live, especially a man accused of high treason, is very improbable. Possible, but highly improbable. Jesus was dead.

What I am questioning are the DETAILS surrounding Jesus' crucifixion. I don't believe that Jesus died within a few hours unless his legs had been broken or the spear was driven into him BEFORE he was dead. Therefore, I am not questioning a crucifixion as the means of Jesus death nor that he truly died. I am questioning the accuracy of the Gospels in telling us the details of Jesus' death.

It is quite possible that Jesus was crucified without any of the fanfare claimed in the gospels, he hung on the cross for days, finally dying from asphyxiation, and then his body was left for a few more days on the cross to be picked apart by scavengers. What was left of him was thrown into an unmarked hole in the ground as was the Roman custom. This is the typical pattern of a Roman crucifixion. Decades later, Christian writers romanticized the bare facts into the fantastical story we find today in the gospels, with angels, earthquakes, three hour eclipses, dead people roaming the street, blah, blah, blah.

The details regarding Jesus death cannot be trusted. All evidence points to most of them being embellishments.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No. I think Jesus died. The Romans were experts at crucifixions. The odds that they let one man live, especially a man accused of high treason, is very improbable. Possible, but highly improbable. Jesus was dead.

What I am questioning are the DETAILS surrounding Jesus' crucifixion. I don't believe that Jesus died within a few hours unless his legs had been broken or the spear was driven into him BEFORE he was dead. Therefore, I am not questioning a crucifixion as the means of Jesus death nor that he truly died. I am questioning the accuracy of the Gospels in telling us the details of Jesus' death.

It is quite possible that Jesus was crucified without any of the fanfare claimed in the gospels, he hung on the cross for days, finally dying from asphyxiation, and then his body was left for a few more days on the cross to be picked apart by scavengers. What was left of him was thrown into an unmarked hole in the ground as was the Roman custom. This is the typical pattern of a Roman crucifixion. Decades later, Christian writers romanticized the bare facts into the fantastical story we find today in the gospels, with angels, earthquakes, three hour eclipses, dead people roaming the street, blah, blah, blah.

The details regarding Jesus death cannot be trusted. All evidence points to most of them being embellishments.

Then you disagree with JAMA

[37818]

" . . No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. . . ." -- John 10:18. Jesus died by His own volition.

[Gary]

Then you disagree with JAMA

Ok, Nick, here is the abstract for the JAMA article:

Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. 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. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.

(JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)

This entire conclusion is based on the hypothesis/assumption that the details in the Gospels are accurate!!

1. Are you claiming that the alleged scourging of Jesus is an established historical fact by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars, historians, and ANE scholars? If so, source please.
2. Are you claiming that the alleged inability of Jesus to carry his cross is an established historical fact by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars, historians, and ANE experts? If so, source please.


The article states: " Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia." Please provide a source from an expert in Roman crucifixion practices who states that death from crucifixion occurs not only by exhaustion asphyxia, but by hypovolemic shock. This is a conclusion based on the assumption that the brutal scourging of Jesus is historical fact. Once again, assumption upon assumption claimed as facts.

The article states: "Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side."

3. Are you asserting Nick that the alleged thrusting of a spear into Jesus side is an established historical fact by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars, historians, and ANE experts? If so, source please.

IF the details in the crucifixion story are true, then yes, Jesus could have died quickly from hypovolemic shock. But why then would the Romans go to the trouble of crucifying him? The entire purpose of crucifixion was to prolong death as long as possible, in full view of the public, to discourage other potential trouble makers. Everyone agrees that the Romans were experts in torture. If you want to crucify someone and do a good job of it you don't scourge him so severely that he bleeds out on the cross after just a few hours.

The Christian argument that the Romans were such experts at executions and tortures that there is no real possibility that Jesus survived the crucifixion must also apply to their expertise in not scourging someone so severly as to defeat the purpose of the crucifixion: a prolonged, agonizing death.

It's another preposterous detail in a fantastically preposterous tall tale.

[Christianbookworm]

Why do you doubt the accuracy of the gospel accounts? Just because Christians wrote them?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Dude. You don't even know how history is done.

If an account was embellished, it would not embellish Jesus to make Him look extra weak.

The details are not legendary or miraculous concerning how Jesus died.

Learn how to do history.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Why do you doubt the accuracy of the gospel accounts? Just because Christians wrote them?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post242098

[Gary]

" . . No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. . . ." -- John 10:18. Jesus died by His own volition.

If the story is true, you are correct:

If you are a Trinitarian Christian you believe that Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Three persons, but one God.

So if you ever say, "God" did such and such, then that means that all three persons did such and such. If you say that God created the heavens and the earth, you mean that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the heavens and the earth. If you say that God rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, you mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rained down fire and brimstone on these wicked cities. So let's apply this thinking to the act of Atonement:

God sent himself, in the form of a man, to be offered up as a human sacrifice, to appease his righteous anger, for the sin of the first humans eating his fruit. God, who is eternal and has no beginning or end, was dead for three days, but then resurrected himself, ate a broiled fish lunch, and then teleported to heaven to sit at the right hand of...himself.

Makes perfect sense!

[Christianbookworm]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post242098

Of course...

I bet he'd complain if we took non-christian sources and the same face value that he takes Christian sources.

[Apologiaphoenix]

God sent himself, in the form of a man, to be offered up as a human sacrifice, to appease his righteous anger, for the sin of the first humans eating his fruit. God, who is eternal and has no beginning or end, was dead for three days, but then resurrected himself, ate a broiled fish lunch, and then teleported to heaven to sit at the right hand of...himself.

Makes perfect sense!

FB_IMG_1437832201730.jpg

[Gary]

Why do you doubt the accuracy of the gospel accounts? Just because Christians wrote them?

No, not because they were Christians, but because they were scientifically-ignorant, superstitious, first century peoples. I doubt the accuracy of any story that alleges that ghosts impregnate virgins, that human virgins give birth to the sons of a God, and that dead bodies can be reanimated. I don't care if the book is written by Muslims, Hindus, Christians, or atheists. Any book which is primarily based on numerous, wild, unprovable, supernatural claims should be considered of doubtful historicity.

[Gary]

Dude. You don't even know how history is done.

If an account was embellished, it would not embellish Jesus to make Him look extra weak.

The details are not legendary or miraculous concerning how Jesus died.

Learn how to do history.

No, it was most likely embellished to get Jesus on the cross and dead on the same day: Passover (or the Day of Preparation depending on which Gospel writer you choose to read) to fulfill a prophecy, thereby strengthening your claim that Jesus was the messiah/divine. The authors couldn't have Jesus hanging on the cross for three or four days. He had to die on a special day, because he was a special human being, with a special mission from a god. So how can you as a writer get Jesus dead the same day that he is nailed to the cross without making Jesus look "weak"? Answer: Have him whipped to a pulp.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No, it was most likely embellished to get Jesus on the cross and dead on the same day: Passover (or the Day of Preparation depending on which Gospel writer you choose to read) to fulfill a prophecy, thereby strengthening your claim that Jesus was the messiah/divine. The authors couldn't have Jesus hanging on the cross for three or four days. He had to die on a special day, because he was a special human being, with a special mission from a god. So how can you as a writer get Jesus dead the same day that he is nailed to the cross without making Jesus look "weak"? Answer: Have him whipped to a pulp.

No. If the Gospel writers were trying to make prophecy history, they would first off not use texts that were traditionally not seen as Messianic.

Second, the ideal time to do this with prophecy would be with the resurrection accounts and yet this does not happen. Embellishments around the passion narratives take place in the Gospel of Peter.

Third, the fact a crucified man was even seen as Messianic after crucifixion needs to be explained.

[Gary]

No. If the Gospel writers were trying to make prophecy history, they would first off not use texts that were traditionally not seen as Messianic.

Second, the ideal time to do this with prophecy would be with the resurrection accounts and yet this does not happen. Embellishments around the passion narratives take place in the Gospel of Peter.

Third, the fact a crucified man was even seen as Messianic after crucifixion needs to be explained.

1. Jesus preached for three years that he was the Messiah and the Son of God (in some sense).
2. After he died, his followers had experiences of him leading them to believe he was alive. If they believed he was the Messiah before his death, wouldn't they believe he was the messiah after his death if they believed that he was truly alive again??

You never answered my question, Nick: Do the overwhelming majority of NT scholars, historians, and ANE scholars believe that the scourging, the need for assistance carrying the cross, and the sword thrust into Jesus' side are historical facts?