Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Ben Masada

Five Evidences that Jesus Could Have Survived

95 posts in this topic

Do we have others sources that Jesus existed?

Yes we do. Others non Biblical scripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like you to think about something. When I read Bible I stumble upon scene where Jesus said to one of his followers, somthing like this:

Ask and it shall be given to you. Would you give your child a snake if child ask you for a fish?

Same is God. He will not gave you snake if you ask for fish.

That message is strong imo. Because think about it. Would you give you child Christianity if was it poison? Snake? Then we can follow the trace all the way to apostoles who all died on cross beliving that he was the one.

Just a thought. Thats something what cross trough my mind after I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me five pieces of evidence to prove he existed.

What about four almost indentical accounts on same event? Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You are aware that those are four different sources? Bible is compilation of books. Bible isnt one source. So four people told almost a same story. When historians found out that four sources claim same thing they usualy take it for granted.

Thats four evidences. For fifth I can mentioned non canonical gospels such as Thomas, Philip, Mary, Judas.

Edit: I wonder what would be evidences that you existed in year 4012....

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

„In a certain sense all men are historians.“ Thomas Carlyle

Why Thomas, Mark or Luke would be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about four almost indentical accounts on same event? Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You are aware that those are four different sources?

I don't think the four gospels are anywhere near close enough to call them almost identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Romans crucified someone they were not taken down until they were dead. Legs were broken, or in Jesus case he was pierced by a spear. In any case, after being scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed through the wrist and feet on the cross, I doubt even if he lived he would be able to appear before the apostles, or even walk or use his hands. He rose from the dead, that is the whole point of the New Testament, a document that tells us of the early experiences with the risen Lord.

Peace

Mark

Said perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIVE EVIDENCES THAT JESUS COULD HAVE SURVIVED THE CROSS

Before presenting here the following evidences that Jesus could have survived the cross, I take it as my duty to clarify my point, that I am not affirming that Jesus survived the cross, but that he could have. In other words, to say that Jesus died on the cross is not 100% safe to assert. It is just one more item of faith, with a high probability to have been true.

1 - According to Josephus, a famous Jewish Historian of the First Century, "It was not uncommon for crucifieds to linger on their crosses, passing out and back up to three or four days till death would eventually catch up on them." Jesus was removed from his cross after only a few hours.

2 - According to Mark 15:44, when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate for permission to remove Jesus from the cross for burial, Pilate, an expert in the crufixion of thousands of Jews, "Was deeply concerned and surprised that Jesus had died so soon. Therefore, he summoned the Centurion to verify." Considering that the Roman soldiers were highly

corrupt and that Joseph was quite a rich man in Israel, God knows the size of a possible bribe which affected the reply of the Centurion to Pilate that Jesus was already dead.

3 - According to Mark 16:1, when that Sabbath was over, which in Israel is at sunset, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body, when they were surprised to see that the tombstone was removed and the tomb was empty. According to Mat. 28:2, there was an earthquake, an angel came down, removed the tombstone and became equally surprised that the tomb was indeed empty. Never mind the three days and three nights of Mat. 12:40. That supposed-to-be prophecy never got fulfilled.

4 - According to John 19:39, Nicodemus, another rich man in Israel, had brought along about 100 pounds of medication to help Joseph take care of Jesus. It is highly possible that Joseph laid Jesus in his walk-in tomb for an hour or two to prevent unnecessary onlookers and returned later with his men to remove Jesus unto another safer place to mend his wounds.

5 - According to Acts 1:3, Luke said that, "After his suffering, aka, passion, Jesus appeared to his disciples for 40 days with many convincing proofs that he was alive, in flesh and bone, eating and driking with his disciples to prove he was not dead. (Luke 24:42,43) Focus that Luke said that Jesus appeared after his suffering (passion) and not after his death. And, if we consider resurrection here, the evidence goes way out of proportion because, to eat and drink after resurretion just as one used to before death, brings down the whole concept of the Pauline gospel of spiritual body. (I Cor. 15:35-44)

Ben

And yet not one single historian at the time documented Jesus even being a person after raising from the dead. Jesus is a myth that requies as much faith as that of those that believe in bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Mark 16:2 says that it was early on the first day of the week, "when the sun had risen".

And of course, I hope, you know what it means: Contradiction.

Jesus was harshly treated before his crucifixion. He was beaten, flogged, and a crown of desert thorns rammed into his skull, rending flesh. His harsh treatment left him highly vulnerable and so he died quickly - hence the surprise and eventual spear-thrusting.

The Romans did not have a different method to deal with people sentenced to crucifixion. The scourge was part of the agenda and all had to go through it to make actual crucifixion easier. The objective was to break down natural resistence.But the spear-piercing business was a late interpolation to fit in some prophecies. Isaiah 53:5 and Zech. 12:10, which BTW, had nothing to do with crucifixion.

Speculation. I suppose if we are talking Court of Law then anything's possible. We've got Reasonable Doubt. Of course, anyone that's watched a legal drama probably knows how unreasonable Reasonable Doubt can sometimes be. I guess I concede that this point is possible, but at the same time you have to concede then that an equal possibility exists that any other number of things could have happened.

Oh gosh! What is not speculation? Every single time you or any other Christian use an OT prophecy to fit Jesus in is speculation.

Don't forget that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, a Jewish High Sabbath. Most probably a Wednesday, if Jesus had been crucified on Wednesday afternoon before the Passover, he would be dead for:

What makes a Jewish High Sabbath is not the festival per se but the fact that it falls on the weekly Sabbath. It just happens that the Passover that year fell on the Sabbath and it was called a High Sabbath, or solemn Sabbath, or a Shabbaton. And Jesus was not crucified on Wednesday but Friday. If you read Mat. 27:62, the reference is made to "The Day of Preparation." In Israel, Friday was always traditionally known as "The Day of Preparation." BTW, the text reminds us all that the next day was the Sabbath. A High Sabbath because it coincided with being Passover.

Night 1 - Wednesday evening, the Sabbath

Day 1 - Thursday day, the Sabbath

Night 2 - Thursday evening

Day 2 - Friday day

Night 3 - Friday evening, the normal Sabbath

Day 3 - Saturday, the Sabbath

Day 1 - Friday. If we are to grant a day for those few minutes that Joseph of Arimathea took to lay Jesus in the tomb just before sunset.

Night 1 - From Friday to Saturday.

Day 2 - Saturday.

Night 2 Saturday night till dawn.

Day 3 - Those few minutes after dawn if we are to close our eyes to the contradictions. The tomb was empty anyways, when the tombstone was removed. It means that the prophecy of the three days and three nights of Mat. 12:40 did not get fulfilled.

If Jesus were to resurrect sometime on the evening of Saturday, perhaps just before the sun set, because of the Saturday Sabbath no one came to check on the tomb, so the first time someone came, early on the morning of the first day - as per Mark 16:2, count them up and Jesus was in the ground for three days and three nights.

No, he was not. When the tombstone was removed, the tomb was empty. God knows when it got empty and by who. IMHO, Joseph did the job during the night of Friday to Saturday, when he removed Jesus' body to a safer place. And BTW, there were no guards at the tomb. They were settled there, if it ever happened, Saturday morning. (Mat. 27:62)

Only if he was not already dead. And the spear in the side ensured he was dead - the point pierced his lung, which had filled with fluid because he was dead. Even if he was alive before the spear, no one in the 1st Century AD survived long with a punctured lung.

There was no spear-piercing; and I already explained above why.

Standard procedure to ensure someone died on the cross was to just let them hang there for a couple of days. However, because of the Sabbath two alternatives were allowed - breaking legs was most common because most people were still alive and the broken legs ensured they suffocated. If someone was dead though, it was far easier to spear them through the lungs. One thrust as opposed to a couple of whacks to the kneecaps.

The Centurion would not have allowed the spear-piercing for two reasons: Either for a possible fat bribe or because he had already declared that Jesus was indeed "the son of God." Read Mark 15:39.

If Jesus was resurrected, it makes sense that Luke writing after the event would refer to his time on the cross as a time of "suffering", rather than death. As for Paul's views from 1 Corinthians, there are several ways of examining it. The most obvious is that Jesus' resurrection was unique. He was sinless (if you believe the scriptures) and so death had no hold of him. He went to death, and then came back again. From this, God exalted him and lifted him up to sit at his right hand (Philippians 2:5-8). For the rest of us, we were sinful and so when we die we die, and Christians believe that by the Grace of God we will be reborn into sinless bodies that will not perish, hence the resurrection spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15.

See what I mean? Speculations. And for the resurrection, the idea is not Jewish. Jews do not believe in bodily resurrectio.

That said, having an imperishable body does not necessarily mean that one cannot eat. Throughout the Hebrew scriptures messengers from God (angels) routinely eat and drink and take shelter and all the things regular people do.

Never in the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures there was a case of spirits eating and drinking. Here is where members of the literal interpretation club get trapped. It all happened in the dreams of the prophets.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as many things in history. One of it is money pit on Oak island. So what now Oak island doesnt exist?

Yes L, everything is up for the grabs of faith. If you are ready to accept by faith, you got the deal. If not, there is nothing for sure. But hey! What's life without illusion? Not worthy living.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what?Because he knew Greek?

No, based on the concept of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. The Greeks were famous for that if you read the Iliad and the Odisey of Homer. Doesn't the NT claim that Jesus was the son of God? There!

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet not one single historian at the time documented Jesus even being a person after raising from the dead. Jesus is a myth that requies as much faith as that of those that believe in bigfoot.

Hey Silver Thong, you might have something in there somewhere. I have just read "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity" by the Catholic Scholar John McManners and happened to read in page 23 the following about Pilate in retirement. He was asked about Jesus of Nazareth and was wondering: "Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth... I can't remember him." Either he killed too many to remember names or this particular one never happened. Isn't something weird?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, I hope, you know what it means: Contradiction.

Not at all. But it is within your purview to see it as such if you so think it.

The Romans did not have a different method to deal with people sentenced to crucifixion. The scourge was part of the agenda and all had to go through it to make actual crucifixion easier. The objective was to break down natural resistence.But the spear-piercing business was a late interpolation to fit in some prophecies. Isaiah 53:5 and Zech. 12:10, which BTW, had nothing to do with crucifixion.

Crown of thorns? Was mocking Jesus with his claims of kingship standard process for all crucifixions?

Oh gosh! What is not speculation? Every single time you or any other Christian use an OT prophecy to fit Jesus in is speculation.

The difference is that even if my speculation is wrong, at least it is based on what the text says. This differs from you, who is intentionally subverting the text to say "what if person x bribed person y and now text z says something completely different from what happened".

What makes a Jewish High Sabbath is not the festival per se but the fact that it falls on the weekly Sabbath. It just happens that the Passover that year fell on the Sabbath and it was called a High Sabbath, or solemn Sabbath, or a Shabbaton. And Jesus was not crucified on Wednesday but Friday. If you read Mat. 27:62, the reference is made to "The Day of Preparation." In Israel, Friday was always traditionally known as "The Day of Preparation." BTW, the text reminds us all that the next day was the Sabbath. A High Sabbath because it coincided with being Passover.

Perhaps you can explain to me where in the gospels it says that the Passover the year of Jesus' death was on a Friday evening/Saturday day. As far as I am aware, the gospels were rather mum on that one. I believe it to be entirely reasonable to suggest a Wednesday crucifixion, and Thursday Sabbath.

There was no spear-piercing; and I already explained above why.

And I reject your hypothesis. There is no reason why Jesus wasn't pierced with a spear.

Never in the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures there was a case of spirits eating and drinking. Here is where members of the literal interpretation club get trapped. It all happened in the dreams of the prophets.

Ben

I beg to disagree. But if I remember rightly, your view of angelic visits is that none of it actually took place, and they were all visions and dreams. I think we'll just have to chalk this one up to yet another irreconcilable difference :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

Hey Silver Thong, you might have something in there somewhere. I have just read "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity" by the Catholic Scholar John McManners and happened to read in page 23 the following about Pilate in retirement. He was asked about Jesus of Nazareth and was wondering: "Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth... I can't remember him." Either he killed too many to remember names or this particular one never happened. Isn't something weird?

You have just read it?

Haven't you and I already gone over this one?

"Jésus ? murmura-t-il, Jésus, de Nazareth ? Je ne me rappelle pas."

is the final line of a famous short story written in 1902 by Anatole France. In English, the title of the story is "The Procurator of Judea" (in the original French, "Le Procurateur de Judée").

Why, yes, we did, back in August:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=225130&view=findpost&p=4428579

Don't you update your portfolio? I realize it's difficult, what with so many forums to keep supplied with copypasta, but at least you could pull the stuff you've already been called on.

Here's a new link to the story in English translation:

www.lonestar.edu/departments/english/france_procurator.pdf

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes L, everything is up for the grabs of faith. If you are ready to accept by faith, you got the deal. If not, there is nothing for sure. But hey! What's life without illusion? Not worthy living.

Ben

post 53, 54

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A poster named Elgonzero (on another forum) quoted to you the correct text from your source last month. I can't post a link to another forum, but elgonzero ben pilate will summon the exchange when typed into a popular serach engine.

The poster called you out on your deceptively mined quote:

Sorry, but this is just demonstrably false. The text that you quoted is the first few lines of the introduction. It does not appear in the book anywhere after that. If you had bothered to read the next few lines into the book you would have seen that it clearly explained the context of the quote.

To which you replied, on the next page

You are right. "The story regarding Pilate is not presented as being true."

Only that Pilate's inability to remember him, gives anyone the power to speculate that, probably, he never existed. Just a doubt, nothing sure about it. I prefer that he did live in the First Century. Problem is that only the NT attests to that.

So you know that what you told Silver Thong here was bogus.

-

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, imagine the Romans piercing the thousands and thousands throughout the Empire to verify if they were already dead. It makes absolutely no sense. Spear-piercing was never in the agenda of the Romans. They didn't care less if the Jews decayed on the croos.

It wasn't a concern for the Romans. It was a concern for the Jews. Their Sabbath was approaching and needed to take the bodies in to be buried. So the legs would have been broken to force the criminals to die faster (being unable to lift themselves up, thus asphixiating.) Jesus already appeared dead. To confirm this, they pierced his side, to see if blood and water poured out. That would indicate that He did in fact die. That's all.

Have you ever checked with the other three gospels if there was ever such a unity of guards to watch Jesus' tomb? No, only the guy who wrote Matthew fabricated the idea. Besides, why does he claim that the guards accepted bribe from the Jewish priests to say that the disciples had come by night and stole the body? (Mat. 28:15) That's an embarrassment!

According to Josephus, the Romans weren't perfect. Beside, even if the guard didn't take the bribe, they would have a hard time proving that they didn't. A missing body? On the guard's watch? Seems to make little difference to me. Beside, an literary analysis of the entire book of Matthew, and the way it was written, would reveal that the book was written primarily to Christian coverts from Judaism, imploring to them not to return to Judaism by using the fulfillments of the Messianic prophecies by Jesus. With Jesus being resurrected, He then states that He has received all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18.)

As for other three Gospels, it is evident that the authors each had an agenda, regarding what particular issue the Christian audiences they were writing to were facing, while still telling Jesus' story and teaching His commands.

"Just after sunrise". That's what Mark says. The tomb was empty. God knows since when. Okay, "they went to see the tomb." Did they see the guards? This story is getting more and more embarrassing.

Was the tomb empty in both accounts?

Mark 16:1 says "When the Sabbath was over..." In Israel, the Sabbath is over at sunset. Perhaps he didn't know about this Jewish custom. Was it so?

The Sabbath was over Saturday evening at sunset. The disciples checked the tomb Sunday morning. Clearly, the Sabbath was over.

Including the nights, according to Mat. 12:40. Don't forget the nights! Then, try to count "three days and three nights."

But Matthew 28 doesn't even defend the idea of Jesus being in the tomb for three nights. How is that possible? Possibly, Jesus was trying to communicate to the Jews that Jerusalem would be destroyed if they didn't repent, just like was proclaimed to Nineveh by Jonah, who had just came out of the belly of the well.

Jesus said that Nineveh would rise up and judge Jerusalem in the great day of judgment because they heard the preaching of Jonah after seeing his come out of the belly of the well, yet Jerusalem would not repent after hearing the preaching of One greater than Jonah. Jerusalem in its last days was very wicked. Josephus spared no details about that fact. That is what Jesus meant. But seeing your antagonism toward Christianity, you easily looked past that one.

I find it odd that you know the point of the Sabbath but can't understand what Jesus was trying to say. He was a Jew after all.

Luke says that on the first day of the week at dawn, the women came to the tomb bringing the spices they had prepared. What for? That should have been done before burial and not afterwards. Besides, how could they have done it if the guards were there to prevent the approach of anyone? Well, the tomb was empty. When did it happen? Amazing!

If it didn't make sense, why would Luke, a doctor, have put it in there. Evidently, it was a custom for those ladies to go down and add spices as part of their tradition. I don't know too much about it, but Luke didn't seem to bother with going in to much detail. Evidently, his readyers would have understood it naturally.

That was written by the author of that gospel about 70 years after Jesus had been gone. Josephus, a Historian addicted to details never mentioned such a thing done by the Romans to anyone crucified. Who asked for Jesus to be pierced? Because it was not a Roman practice.

As I said, it was a Jewish practice to not work on the Sabbath. Jesus died Friday, before sunset. The Jews wanted to take the bodies down and have them buried before sunset so that they could observe the Sabbath. Seems logical to me.

"...and three nights." If you don't want me to remind you of Mat. 12:40, admit the contradiction of a non-fulfilled prophecy.

The phrase just before this one?

"The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." (Matthew 12:41 ESV)

Evidently, the point that Jesus was trying to make was that the Jewish Nation would be judged by God for rejecting their Messiah. The illustration of this is that Nineveh, whom was condemned to be destroyed, repented. Evidently, Jesus is saying that Jerusalem wouldn't repent. And therefore, Jesus is obviously saying that Jerusalem would be destroyed. This was a major theme in the Gospels, especially Matthew.

"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him." When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them." (Matthew 21:43-45 ESV)

Above was just one example. Paul knew that those Christians that returned to Judaism would put themselves back under the curse of the Law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68.) Paul also knew that the curse would soon take place against Jerusalem and did not want his fellow brothers and sisters to take part in it. In Galatians 3:13, Paul makes it clear: Jesus took the curse on Himself so that we wouldn't have to. Those that rejected Him had shed innocent blood and condemned themselves under the curse. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews scattered throughout the world for over two thousand years. They were scorned, mocked, and persecuted everywhere they went, just as the curse said in Deuteronomy 28:15-68. During that time, the Gentiles (whom the Jews back then called 'fuel for the fires of Hell') received a huge amount of blessings. They enjoyed pretty much unrestricted power while the Jews, those to whom the promises were originally made, were rejected.

Thankfully, that curse won't last forever, as God is true to His promises.

So you can make this a matter of minor details. I'll try to see the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crown of thorns? Was mocking Jesus with his claims of kingship standard process for all crucifixions?

Perhaps the soldiers added that one themselves but not because Jesus ever claimed to be king. His disciples were to blame for having acclaimed him king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem, which was a Roman province at that time. (Luke 19:38-40)

The difference is that even if my speculation is wrong, at least it is based on what the text says. This differs from you, who is intentionally subverting the text to say "what if person x bribed person y and now text z says something completely different from what happened".

Perhaps the explanation is in the natural human attitude of preconceived notions.

Perhaps you can explain to me where in the gospels it says that the Passover the year of Jesus' death was on a Friday evening/Saturday day. As far as I am aware, the gospels were rather mum on that one. I believe it to be entirely reasonable to suggest a Wednesday crucifixion, and Thursday Sabbath.

Yah, perhaps I can. Try to follow my lead on this one: When Jesus was arrested in the Gethsemani, it was Thursday night. He was brought to the Sanhedrin to be tried by Anas and Caiaphas. Now, read John 18:28. "At daybreak, they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium. They did not enter the Praetorium themselves, for they had to avoid ritual impurity if they were to eat the Passover

Seder that evening." Since that was a solemn or high Sabbath because the 14th of Nisan had fallen on the weekly Sabbath, it is only obvious that Jesus crucifixion was not on Wednesday but Friday. Otherwise, the Passover sabbath would not have been a High Sabbath.

And I reject your hypothesis. There is no reason why Jesus wasn't pierced with a spear.

Yes, there is. The Romans would not give a damn if Jews would decay on the crosses during the Sabbath. Since according to Josephus, the Romans killed thousands of Jews, imagine they spear-piercing Jew after Jew to check if they were dead already. It just was not in the Roman agenda to spear-pierce Jews. In the case of Jesus, the writers needed to plagiarize some kind of OT prophecy to enhance Jesus' credibility as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

I beg to disagree. But if I remember rightly, your view of angelic visits is that none of it actually took place, and they were all visions and dreams. I think we'll just have to chalk this one up to yet another irreconcilable difference :tu:

Well, that's not my fault. I am just reporting what the Scriptures say about prophets: "If there is one among you, by way of dreans

and visions I'll make My will known to him." (Num. 12:6) The only thing important in a prophetic dream or vision is the message and not what happen to the messengers during the dream.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

You have just read it?

Oh! Just recently read it. I didn't mean at the moment I read your post. I didn't thing I would have to explain "just when."

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't thing I would have to explain "just when."

You don't. What you need to explain is why, several months after you were given the correct information about the misleading quote you had mined, and after you had acknowledged on another forum that the quoted saying was "not presented as true," you nevertheless pitched the same quote yet again to Siver Thong, falsely, as if it were a factual finding by a respected scholar.

It isn't any scholar's finding. It is a quote from a famous work of fiction. Maybe the first time you floated it here, you thought it was genuine, but you knew that it was fictitious when you replied to Silver Thong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, perhaps I can. Try to follow my lead on this one: When Jesus was arrested in the Gethsemani, it was Thursday night. He was brought to the Sanhedrin to be tried by Anas and Caiaphas. Now, read John 18:28. "At daybreak, they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium. They did not enter the Praetorium themselves, for they had to avoid ritual impurity if they were to eat the Passover

Seder that evening." Since that was a solemn or high Sabbath because the 14th of Nisan had fallen on the weekly Sabbath, it is only obvious that Jesus crucifixion was not on Wednesday but Friday. Otherwise, the Passover sabbath would not have been a High Sabbath.

What version of the text are you using to suggest this? I just whacked out my Greek version of the Bible to read the original text in its original language. The word used is pascha, translated as Passover. How do you read into this that the Passover thus fell on a Saturday Sabbath? I don't see it, I just see it referred to as "Passover"

Yes, there is. The Romans would not give a damn if Jews would decay on the crosses during the Sabbath. Since according to Josephus, the Romans killed thousands of Jews,imagine they spear-piercing Jew after Jew to check if they were dead already. It just was not in the Roman agenda to spear-pierce Jews. In the case of Jesus, the writers needed to plagiarize some kind of OT prophecy to enhance Jesus' credibility as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

1- Thousands of Jews may have been killed but not all at once. You'd be lucky if more than two or three were crucified on any one day. And most days are not the Sabbath and therefore a crucified Jew would not need to be rushed.

2 - Out of respect for Jewish custom, the Romans did break legs to ensure a quick death for the Sabbath. But two whacks (possibly more if the first whack doesn't break a kneecap) to the legs aren't necessary if someone's already dead, and a spear thrust would actually be quicker to determine if Jesus was alive or dead.

Your ridicule of this as "imagine they spear-piercing Jew after Jew" is becoming rather thin. Clearly that's not what happened.

Well, that's not my fault. I am just reporting what the Scriptures say about prophets: "If there is one among you, by way of dreans

and visions I'll make My will known to him." (Num. 12:6) The only thing important in a prophetic dream or vision is the message and not what happen to the messengers during the dream.

Ben

Oh brother:

Num 12:6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.

Num 12:7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house.

Num 12:8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,

God was speaking to Aaron to point out that Moses spoke to God directly. We can glean two pieces of information out of this: 1- God DOES have the ability to speak directly to his prophets, and 2- Numbers 12:6 is NOT a coverall statement that all prophets at all times will receive their messages only through dreams and visions (only the prophets at the time of Moses and Aaron).

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "blood and water" that poured out of the wound in Jesus side was lymphatic fluid from the pericardium being pierced. The pericardium is the sac that surrounds the heart. When it is full of fluid the resulting pressure prevents the heart from beating. When the Roman soldier stuck the spear in Jesus side I'm fairly certain he pierced the pericardium because the lymphatic fluid would appear like "blood and water". Lymphatic fluid tinged with a trace of blood would be a clear light pink color.

When they flopped Jesus on the ground the resulting whomp may have been enough to start his heart slowly beating again where he would be in a deep coma. Then setting him a cool dark tomb for a few days may have been enough time to allow him to heal enough to get up and walk out of that tomb.

I'm also fairly certain that when Jesus "died" up on that cross he probably had a near death experience. The stories in the New Testament parallel stories I have read in NDE descriptions.

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "blood and water" that poured out of the wound in Jesus side was lymphatic fluid from the pericardium being pierced. The pericardium is the sac that surrounds the heart. When it is full of fluid the resulting pressure prevents the heart from beating. When the Roman soldier stuck the spear in Jesus side I'm fairly certain he pierced the pericardium because the lymphatic fluid would appear like "blood and water". Lymphatic fluid tinged with a trace of blood would be a clear light pink color.

Alternatively, I'm fairly certain the spear pierced his lung. On a cross, as long as a person has strength to hold up his body he or she will survive. When the crucifixion victim loses strength they slump forward. The weight is transferred to the ribs and a person slowly suffocates. When this happens, fluid begins to seep into the lungs and a person dies by literally drowning in their own juices. To check if a person is dead, piercing a lung and seeing water flow out proves that the person did actually die on the cross. And because he was up on the cross, gravity would ensure that blood would also drip from the wound, causing the mix of blood and water that is described.

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone should become agnostic :tu: . We will never know the truth until we die. But guess what we all will die! The great experiment all we have to do is wait. Time will tell. So just be happy :su

Edit: i know this is kinda off topic, i just felt like i should say it

Pascal's Wager is your lot :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "blood and water" that poured out of the wound in Jesus side was lymphatic fluid from the pericardium being pierced. The pericardium is the sac that surrounds the heart. When it is full of fluid the resulting pressure prevents the heart from beating. When the Roman soldier stuck the spear in Jesus side I'm fairly certain he pierced the pericardium because the lymphatic fluid would appear like "blood and water". Lymphatic fluid tinged with a trace of blood would be a clear light pink color.

When they flopped Jesus on the ground the resulting whomp may have been enough to start his heart slowly beating again where he would be in a deep coma. Then setting him a cool dark tomb for a few days may have been enough time to allow him to heal enough to get up and walk out of that tomb.

I'm also fairly certain that when Jesus "died" up on that cross he probably had a near death experience. The stories in the New Testament parallel stories I have read in NDE descriptions.

Art

The blood and water that flowed out, signified those two great benefits which all believers partake of through Christ, justification and sanctification; blood for atonement, water for purification. They both flow from the pierced side of Jesus. To Christ crucified we owe merit for our justification, and Spirit and grace for our sanctification. Let this Help silence the fears of Christians, and encourage their hopes; there came both water and blood out of Jesus' pierced side, both to justify and sanctify them. The Scripture was fulfilled, in Pilate's not allowing his legs to be broken, Ps. 34:20 . There was a type of this in the paschal lamb, Ex. 12:46 . May we ever look to Him, whom, by our sins, we have ignorantly and heedlessly pierced. He who shed from his wounded side both water and blood, that we might be justified and sanctified in his name. It was nessary to fufill the prophecies. :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't. What you need to explain is why, several months after you were given the correct information about the misleading quote you had mined, and after you had acknowledged on another forum that the quoted saying was "not presented as true," you nevertheless pitched the same quote yet again to Siver Thong, falsely, as if it were a factual finding by a respected scholar.

It isn't any scholar's finding. It is a quote from a famous work of fiction. Maybe the first time you floated it here, you thought it was genuine, but you knew that it was fictitious when you replied to Silver Thong.

As you can see, I am human too. But let us proceed with what is more relevant. After all, as you say, it was a work of fiction.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.