So, this is a continuation of the paper that I wrote, and so on and so forth.
These are just my scientific reasonings.
ATTENTION:
I'm probably not going to discuss a whole lot here.
UPDATE:
I find it funny that there is such less argument here than on my last blog
It is scientifically possible that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Not only that, but Biblical, medical, and historical evidence seem to support the fact that he did. 1) The process of crucifixion was a slow and painful one. This is why it was the Roman’s preferred method of execution. It was torture. Death came within a matter of several painstaking hours to a few excruciating days. The deciding factors were primarily prior health and the environment at the time. The New Bible Dictionary even states that crucifixion rarely causes death before 36 hours and can sometimes take up to nine days (Source: New Bible Dictionary). 2) Jesus was not on the cross long enough to be killed. Jesus was on the cross for either three or six hours, according to John and Mark respectively (John 19:30, Mark 15:33). This is because Pontius Pilate had the crucifixion pushed back until the day before Sabbath. It was also against Jewish customs to have a man crucified on Sabbath. Consequently, the bodies must be taken off of the crosses the night before. These times mentioned by John and Mark are not long enough at all to kill someone like Jesus through crucifixion. When Jesus was taken off of the cross and thought to be dead, Pontius Pilate could not believe it. His reaction is critical, since Pilate, who ordered the crucifixion of many people, would obviously be the expert on the subject. 3) Another reason why he survived was because Jesus was in relatively good health before he was crucified. Unlike the two criminals that he was crucified alongside, Pontius Pilate did not order the breaking of Christ’s legs. Not being beaten by a club (which the other two had been) can greatly increase your chances of survival while crucified. Dr. Hugo Toll, a medical expert from Sweden, goes into great detail about how Jesus had an advantage over crucifixion due to his superb health and low amount of time spent on the cross. Also, he discusses how Jesus appeared to be dead while he was actually unconscious. When removing the three men from the crosses, the Roman soldiers thought that Jesus was dead; otherwise they would have beaten him like they did the two other men. As stated, Pontius Pilate was appalled that Jesus could have apparently passed away in such a short amount of time. People try to claim that Jesus may have died from exhaustion if nothing else, but Dr. Toll says that’s not likely, considering the other two who were beaten and then crucified were still alive later that night and had to be beaten again by the guards. He provides biblical evidence for his claims as well (Source: Dog Jesus pa Korset? by Hugo Toll). 4) Jesus was still alive when he was taken down from the cross. In the Bible, John gives a firsthand account of the Roman soldier who stabbed Jesus with the tip of his lance as a precaution to make sure Jesus was really dead rather than beating him. Upon stabbing Christ, however, there was a sudden flow of blood and water exiting the wound (John 19:34). Since Jesus was unconscious, he obviously did not react to the sharp pain of a lance piercing his side. This led the enemies of Jesus to believe he was dead. However, as John stated, blood flowed freely from his body. When the heart stops beating, blood no longer flows through the body. It sits still. When blood sits still, it begins to coagulate. Had Jesus died, his blood would have begun to coagulate and then would not have flown so freely. Believers may argue that Jesus was not dead long enough for the blood to coagulate to that degree, but if he was really dead, would blood erupt from his body in a “sudden flow”? No. The sudden flow of blood indicates that his heart was still beating. Had his heart stopped beating, the blood would have emerged as a trickle rather than the rush described. 5) The actions of Jesus and his disciples before and after crucifixion also point towards the fact that Jesus was delivered from the cross alive. In the book of John, it is stated that Joseph of Arimathea (a disciple of Jesus who kept his affiliations secret for fear of the opposing Jews) retrieved the body of Jesus from the cross. Later on, Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin (supreme court of Israel made up of 23 judges) who showed sympathy towards Jesus, arrived with copious amounts of a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about a hundred pounds (John 19:38-39). Aloes are commonly used to heal the skin, and myrrh has been used for millennia for pain relief. Moreover, such a large amount of ointments would not have been prepared if the disciples did not think that Jesus would survive the crucifixion. Had Jesus died on the cross, all of these ointments would have been useless. According to Mirza Tahir Ahmad, a well known religious scholar, these ointments were not an easy thing to acquire. They would not have been sought and applied to the body of Jesus if he were dead. In order to have such a large amount of these ointments ready at the time of his crucifixion, preparation must have started well before the actual time of crucifixion. In the Bible, it is stated that these ointments were applied to his body while he was inside of the tomb. Ahmad explains that “the body which was taken down must have shown positive signs of life before the application of the ointment; otherwise, [the application of ointments to a dead body] turns out to be an extremely stupid, unwarranted, and futile exercise”. In fact, it is such odd behavior that only one apostle even attempted to explain the act. Saint John suggests that the reason that ointments and balm were placed on Jesus was because it was a Jewish practice to do so for the dead. However, religious scholars agree that John was not of Jewish origin, and this incorrect statement proves it. Ahmad says that “it is known for certain that Jews or the Children of Israel have never applied any ointments whatsoever to the bodies of their dead”. Instead, he explains that the aloe and myrrh was used to save Jesus from his critical condition after crucifixion. (Source: Christianity – A Journey from Facts to Fiction). Also, evidence from the Gospels again show that Jesus, upon exiting the sepulcher, removed his followers’ doubts by showing his wounds and assuring them that he was not a spirit but flesh and bones (Luke 24:39-40, John 20:27). He explained to his followers that he was not some holy spirit, but just a man who is in the process of recovering from his wounds. 6) Near death experiences can be overcome. A study was conducted in where 78 medical cases of near death experiences were examined. In most of these cases, about eighty percent, medical professionals were present at the time of or directly after the event. Forty one percent of the test subjects in the study reported that during their near death experience, they had actually been pronounced dead. But they survived (Source: The Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences by Drs. Greyson and Stevenson. Surviving something which is supposed to cause death is much more common than one initially thinks. A friend of mine from high school was pronounced dead by medics after falling in a river and drowning. Miraculously, he somehow started breathing again. Granted, drowning in a river is not as extreme as being crucified. But being poisoned and cremated like in the Bhowal Case from India is. A man was poisoned by his wife and was pronounced dead. He is cremated, but a heavy storm broke out, causing everyone to simply leave the fire burning. The rain put out the fire before it could kill the man. A group of hermits noticed he was alive and rescued him, burning a different body in his place in order to make it look like the cremation was completed. Over the next twelve years the man worked to regain his memory. Upon returning home, the familiar surroundings fully restored it, and he filed a civil suit against his wife. People doubted him, yet he supplied information concerning his marriage which only he would actually know. Thus, his estate (which his wife murdered him to acquire) was returned to him. (Source: The Bhowal Case, compiled by Mitra and Chakravarty). If an ordinary man can survive excruciating circumstances such as being poisoned and burned alive, surely Jesus could survive the crucifixion, especially with all the positive factors working in his favor.
I'd also like to add that in the Bhowal case the piece of evidence he supplied was knowledge of a birthmark on his wife's body which you could not know about unless... well... you know.
AN ADDED NOTE:
I believe that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion. I know that the #1 Christian argument against me will be that "God caused him to die on the cross because it was a part of His plan" or something like that. Don't post things like that here. Leave your religious bias outside, please. If you can't think of anything more intelligent than that to say, then don't say anything.
However, does the Bible specify where he was pricked with the lance? Because there are certain areas that would result in gushing soon after death. Coagulation can take from 8-12 hours to occur in a large amount, so it is entirely possible it would rush out. And you weren't particularly clear on this point, but what I think you meant was that since the heart stopped beating, what was forcing it out so fast. Well, was he held up? Was gravity working at the time he was cut? If so, that could cause the flow you speak of.
Plus, just because Jesus seemed to be in excellent physical condition does not mean his organs were perfect. I have not seen any proof of this, but it is entirely possible Jesus's lungs were weak, so they collapsed after only 3-6 hours. Just a possibility.
I'm pretty sure that it said somewhere that he was pricked in the side. While it is possible that blood could still rush out, it seems more plausible that blood would simply trickle out without the aid of a beating heart.
It also depends on which side, the direction of the blood vessels, and other things. If the vessels were flowing down, then there would be a bigger chance for gravity alone being able to cause such a flow. But if they were flowing up, and he were dead, then it would probably be much harder, no?
If his lungs were weak and they had collapsed and he had died, that would conflict with the whole ointment ordeal. Also, it's hard to operate just on a theory. He could have had weak lungs, but there's an equal chance (probably better, imo) that he didn't. Even if we assumed his lungs were weak, we still have to take into account that the other two men that were hung were still alive after being beaten twice. So it could have just evened the playing field.
Also, that one guy, Josefus Flavius or whatever, wrote about an instance where he saw three men get crucified, and while two died after being taken down, one recovered under the physician's hand. Some people believe that he's talking about Jesus.
If the vessels that were pricked were veins or something flowing up, you'd definitely be right. But another thing to consider about that: sometimes when coagulation occurs, it occurs slowly, but accumulates in certain locations, choking off the supply of blood to other places and acting as a dam. If one of those locations was pricked, that whole amount of blood that had been trapped would explode.
And it wouldn't contradict the ointment thing because how would the ointment guy know what was going on inside in those times? And you're right, it is unlikely (I added a disclaimer) but it is a possibility (and being contrary is more fun that being a sycophant).
But another thing to consider: for that to work out, things would have to play out exactly like that. The chances for those events to actually happen exactly like that are, in my opinion, slimmer than just appearing to be dead. The Romans never really double checked the body, did they? Joseph of Aremithea, however, would have. While they weren't exactly doctors, it doesn't really take one to tell the difference between a dead body and a living one. So while they had no idea what's going on inside, it was easy to see from the outside that this was a living body (but not too easy, otherwise the Romans would have known).
It's cirtainly a very interesting subject and well written. (have two kudos)
There have been several hypothesis put forward over the years, even one that involves tetrodotoxin, the chemical found in puffer fish (apparently used by Voodoo priests while creating zombies) that can make a man appear to be dead, even to a trained physician.
But they all forget one thing, Yes, it's possible that he simply passed out and was secretly healed back to recovery or even that he was put in a chemical coma, but how do they explain that just a few days after this event, beaten, crucified and stabbed in the side, he was seen apparently alive and well and walking about.
Personaly, this is why I think that the person who was crucified and the person who was seen walking around a few days afterwards were two different people. No matter how good the physician was, no matter how strong the person was, they would more than likely not be in any fit state to walk just a few days later.
I think the simplest and most likeliest explanation is that Judas kissed someone else, an unknown desciple who had volunteered to die in Jesus' place.
After all, Jesus already knew that Judas was apparently going to betray him, so it's not impossible that an alternative plan was made.
Again, Slacker, I believe you do present a valid theory. But in response to your argument, I'd like to say that I don't think it was a matter of a few days.
I know that you know that Christianity mixed in a lot with pagan customs when Paul preached to the Gentiles, such as the celebration of the birth of Jesus taking place on December 25th. Similarly, I believe that this is how the concept of his resurrection came about. In the comments of my last blog I talked a bit about Greek festivals and whatnot that mirrored the story of resurrection. Some of these festivals followed a three day structure (death on the first day, resurrection on second, ascension on third).
Personally I think he could have been in the tomb much longer. Weeks, maybe even months. Maybe that's why his apostles thought he was a ghost. We'd never know for sure, though, since the bible has been changed so many times
Hmmm, that's an interesting angle to take and one that I'd never thought of before but I'm definately going to consider it. Of course if Jesus was in the tomb for weeks or even months rather than a few days, that obviously changes things quite drasticaly.
That was a fantastic read, looking forward to the next one. I love a blog that has me thinking for so long after i've read it. Have 2 kudos for all of your efforts.
Very cool, jetfuel, I actually used to think things like this a long time ago when I was young and was being told about Jesus, they always made such a big deal about it, and I always thought "I bet he was just in a coma or something...".
I guess it's a bit at odds with your theory, but have you seen the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There"? It's a really great film exploring the very viable theory that Jesus really didn't exist as we believe he did nowadays. I think the waters have been muddied to the point where it's becoming more and more impossible to learn what really happened, but it's great to see people approaching the subject logically, and looking at alternative explanations.
I don't really know what they are, but I gave you two kudos.
Wow. This is really one of the best made papers I've read in a long time. It destroys Christianity completely, but it does it with class...except for this: "I'd also like to add that in the Bhowal case the piece of evidence he supplied was knowledge of a birthmark on his wife's body which you could not know about unless... well... you know." :haha But what I'd like to clear up in a totally non-confrontational tone: Are you suggesting Jesus was just a human? The way you've explained it leads me to believe it is entirely possible to be crucified (not in todays world, but nontheless), survive, and re-emerge from a tomb the messiah? I see your points, and you make them better than any other religious argument I've ever seen, but I'll keep my religion ( no matter how much you've rattled me in my beliefs)
Kudoz, I just have to say that the blood and water flowing freely from his body was symbolism, probably nothing else.
It's called hypovolemic shock. look it up. And he had a sword wound in his side, which could have allowed for the fluids to come out?? hmmm... interesting.
It's isn't fiction, it's a hypothesis. If you want fiction, I would suggest you read Mark and Luke in the Bible, one of which claims that Jesus was born during Herod's reign and the other claims he was born 10 years later during the Census of Quirinus.
Both cannot be correct so one must be fiction.
Jesus had a spear shoved into his side. This single wound untreated could of killed him let alone all the other abuse he received. You try defending this but the sheer depth necessary in such an attack, if did not hurt any organs, would of made a gash of blood. Your weak attempt to explain this off does not work out.
The wounds were treated in the tomb. In fact, the stab wound was given just before Jesus was taken down from the cross, meaning it went for the least amount of time untreated. Likewise, he was also treated for all the other abuse.
For the sake of your argument let's say that Jesus was abused more than the other two criminals before crucifixion. It still would not have made as big of an impact as having your legs broken while on the cross, which didn't happen to Jesus but did happen to the two criminals. And if the other two criminals were still alive when taken down and had to be beaten, who's to say that Jesus couldn't be alive?
And you may think my explanation is weak but at least it makes more sense than Saint John's explanation for applying ointments to Jesus' body, or more sense than most of these stories anyway.
Yeah, it's worth noting exactly why they used to break the legs of crucifixion victims.
During crucifixion it is the tension on the arms that causes the most pain, but leverage from the legs can ease that pain, so they often broke the legs.
Crucifixion was definately designed to cause as much suffering as it possibly could for as long as it possibly could so it's quite surprising that Jesus only lasted the short time that he did before apparent death.
Longinus is an interesting figure, he's the guy who speared Jesus, but isn't mentioned in the Biblcal gospels but is found in the pseudepigraphal 'Gospel of Nicodemus'
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were both members of the Sanhedrin who apparently were secretly disciples of Jesus, so who's to say that Longinus wasn't also 'in on the act'? The body of Longinus, twice recovered and lost, was asserted to have been found once more at Mantua in 1304, together with the Holy Sponge stained with Jesus' blood, wherewith it was told— extending Longinus' role— that Longinus had assisted in cleansing Christ's body when it was taken down from the cross, which if it is true, associates Longinus with the conspiracy to save Jesus from the crucifixion.
I really can't be assed to read this properly right now, but I might come back later. If he did survive, then how could he move a massive rock from the tomb by himself (especially considering the condition he would have been in)?
read it lol
"surely Jesus could survive the crucifixion, especially with all the positive factors working in his favor"
You made a massive assumption at the end. This doesn't really prove anything, plus i think there was a lot more negative factors against his favor. There's more "flaws" in this than in the bible.
thr4sh1ng_m3t4l wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 12:46am :
I really can't be assed to read this properly right now, but I might come back later. If he did survive, then how could he move a massive rock from the tomb by himself (especially considering the condition he would have been in)?
A good question which I will be happy to answer. I think that one of the same people who were tending to Jesus in the tomb removed the stone.
Either that, or he didn't actually leave the cave so soon. He may have been in the tombs for months for all we know, and by this time may have been well enough to move the stone himself.
jetfuel495 wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 6:28pm :
I think that one of the same people who were tending to Jesus in the tomb removed the stone.
Either that, or he didn't actually leave the cave so soon. He may have been in the tombs for months for all we know, and by this time may have been well enough to move the stone himself.
So far you've used the bible as a direct reference, now your basing ideas on your own theories. There are scholars who have studied Christianity and Jesus their whole lives. If he did stay alive magically for months without food or water, the stone would still be too big for a human to move.
I find religion a really fun topic to debate. Cause I'm agnostic and can see faults in both sides. This is no different from people you would call religious fanatics with a biased opinion. There's answers coming from everywhere.
thr4sh1ng_m3t4l wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 7:51am :
jetfuel495 wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 6:28pm :
I think that one of the same people who were tending to Jesus in the tomb removed the stone.
Either that, or he didn't actually leave the cave so soon. He may have been in the tombs for months for all we know, and by this time may have been well enough to move the stone himself.
So far you've used the bible as a direct reference, now your basing ideas on your own theories. There are scholars who have studied Christianity and Jesus their whole lives. If he did stay alive magically for months without food or water, the stone would still be too big for a human to move.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 7:43pm :
How do you know how big or heavy the stone was?
Think about the size of a rock that a strongman could life. Then think of the size a doorway must be to fit a body carried by probably more than one person.
The reason that I believe that Jesus could have stayed in the tomb for such a long time is that in the bible it says that someone applied ointments to him and whatnot. Since ointments are never put on a dead body, Jesus should have been alive. Whoever was looking after him must have also fed him.
Also the idea that Jesus was only in the tomb for a few days most likely comes from pagan traditions. I talked about it a little bit in the comments of this blog and my last blog, and Slacker has covered pagan influence on Christianity a lot in his blogs.
Also, Joseph retrieved Jesus, so he would have put him somehqerw that would be hidden but accessible. Perhaps him and Nicodemus were strong enough to move the stone together.
thr4sh1ng_m3t4l wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 10:35am :
Think about the size of a rock that a strongman could life. Then think of the size a doorway must be to fit a body carried by probably more than one person.
Ever heard of a lever? With one long pole being used as a lever with a suitable fulcrum, say a smaller rock or a block of wood, if the stone was fairly spherical, it could weigh a tone and one person could still roll it. You don't have to actualy be able to lift a stone in order to move it out of the way.
SlackerBabbath wrote on Jun 11th, 2009 at 9:44am :
thr4sh1ng_m3t4l wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 10:35am :
Think about the size of a rock that a strongman could life. Then think of the size a doorway must be to fit a body carried by probably more than one person.
Ever heard of a lever? With one long pole being used as a lever with a suitable fulcrum, say a smaller rock or a block of wood, if the stone was fairly spherical, it could weigh a tone and one person could still roll it. You don't have to actualy be able to lift a stone in order to move it out of the way.
From the inside? An spherical? There's a lot of if's there.
thr4sh1ng_m3t4l wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 11:01pm :
From the inside?
Cirtainly, why not? It's only a case of rolling it away from the doorway, which on ancient tombs were often little more than a hole about half the height of a standard door.
thr4sh1ng_m3t4l wrote on Jun 10th, 2009 at 11:01pm : An spherical? There's a lot of if's there.
Well I believe that the rock was described as being 'rolled' in front of the tomb doorway. If that's the case it's either spherical or disk shaped and of the two, the spherical one would be the easiest to carve.
jetfuel495 wrote on Jun 11th, 2009 at 11:39am : Until there's proof. Up until now, it's been theory. The next installment will deal with what I believe to be proof.
From that link.
"Death by crucifixion occurred through exhaustion asphyxia - the victim eventually suffocated"
This has been dismissed during the experiments done by Frederick Zugibe which have revealed that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, as in the case of crucifixion on a cross, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly-increasing discomfort and pain.
Death could actualy result from any combination of causes, including blood loss, hypovolemic shock, or sepsis following infection, caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion, or by the process of being nailed itself, or eventual dehydration
And Slacker, wouldn't most of those causes of death take a bit longer than 3-6 hours? I mean, after all, the average death time was 36 hours.
Well blood loss for example can kill a person very rapidly, depending upon how bad the wounds are and remember, this guy had just had a couple of nails driven through his wrists (incidently, although Jesus is often depicted with a single nail through both feet, it was actualy more common for the feet to be nailed to either side of the the upright beam with nails through the sides of the ankles) but yeah, on average crucifixion lasted much longer than the amount of time that Jesus lasted, which in my opinion adds merit to the hypothesis that he was still alive when he was taken down from the cross.
Taken from wikipedia:
"The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the prior health of the condemned, and environmental circumstances."
Keep in mind, he was Jesus and a lot of people wanted him dead. Considering the amount the people who were crucifying him hated him, most likely would have gone through serious scourging etc., more so than normal.
^Ah but also, remember that Jesus' legs were not broken while he was on the cross. In fact, I think I may have used that same quote in my paper. I've explained this in a comment dated jun 8th in response to Craigo somewhere in these comments.
Yes, but there would've been torture before he went on the cross, which brought him close to death.
Then with the stab, Roman soldiers were taught to do it lethally (All his blood wouldn't coagulate that fast: therefore a blood flow).
Multiple people confirmed that he was dead. If he was in an unconscious state, he would have been breathing involuntary. Not to notice that is just stupidity and people don't get into power being stupid.
There is no way he could have been walking and healthy three days later. It would have taken months to recover.
Honestly I think there is more evidence supporting it than against it.
Everybody was tortured. Everybody. And everybody had their legs broken, except Jesus. Not having your legs broken gives you a huge advantage. But even with the legs broken, the new bible dictionary states that death rarely occurred before 36 hours. I've addressed this. What's a little extra torture compared to having your legs broken?
And for the stab, the Romans were actually instructed to beat survivors of crucifixion. They stabbed Jesus to warrant a response. Being unconscious, he gave none. And I never said there wouldn't be any blood flow, I said it wouldn't be such a rush. If he was dead, there would still be a flow. But it would be a trickle, not a rush, due to the absence of a beating heart.
Who exactly confirmed he was dead? Was it John when he said that "the Romans saw that he was dead"? Because when you think about how that's worded, it means nothing. It means that to the roman soldiers, Jesus appeared to be dead. It was the roman's perception that he was dead. Not exactly a confirmation. There are also other theories which Slacker has discussed which involve that mysterious drink Jesus was given when he was being hung up.
You're right, there is no way three days would have been long enough.
The idea that it only took three days to heal came from some Greek festival, probably from Adonis or a similar celebration. All of these festivals that predate Christianity have undeniable similarities with the story of Jesus. Personally I believe he could have been in the tomb for months. That's why there were 100 pounds of herbs, that's why his disciples thought he was a ghost.
You can look through the comments of this blog and of part one to see what I'm talking about. Slacker has also written a great blog on the influence of pagan and Egyptian customs on Christianity.
And for the record, you can believe he died on the cross if you want to. But when you say the word "evidence" I assume you mean scientific evidence. So if you believe that he did die and you believe that you have scientific evidence to back your beliefs, that's fine with me. But don't tell me that you also have scientific evidence that he was magically resurrected and flew up to heaven.
Sorry man I didn't mean to come off as angry or something like that. I just don't think things through when I type from my phone. It's a hassle not being at a computer.
I haven't read all of the comments so this may have been said already, but Jesus was beaten far more severely than the other criminals. He was scourged on his back which is common, but then after almost collapsing from pain, he was turned onto his back and scourged on his front side as well, which was uncommon, and used only for the worst of criminals. That is what caused poor physical condition.
@Manic: The fact that Jesus was beaten more than the other criminals is cancelled out by the fact that the other two criminals had their legs broken before crucifixion. Being beaten and whipped may have been extremely painful, but in the end, it's all superficial wounding. Since they did not break Jesus' legs, his legs were still able to support the weight of his body, thereby making his hanging easier than the other two criminals (who had their legs broken and were still alive at the time they were taken down). It's all been discussed somewhere in these comments.
manic wrote on Jul 1st, 2009 at 4:58am : I haven't read all of the comments so this may have been said already, but Jesus was beaten far more severely than the other criminals. He was scourged on his back which is common, but then after almost collapsing from pain, he was turned onto his back and scourged on his front side as well, which was uncommon, and used only for the worst of criminals. That is what caused poor physical condition.
If his face was severely beaten, it would also mean that no one would know if it wasn't actualy Jesus on the cross, which could make his resurrection completely un-miraculous.
:five: