How do we know?

[SpidermanTuba]

Good question.

First, Jesus was scourged. If you saw the Passion of the Christ, you'd get an idea of about how brutal the beating was.

THe Passion of the Christ is live footage? Wow.

So he had already lost a significant amount of blood before being crucified.

Second, he was, of course, crucified. That entailed being nailed to the cross, hanging by a nail in each wrist and supported by a third nail that went through the ankles. The Romans, who had long since perfected crucifixion, did this to prolong suffering. The crucifixee would hang and be unable to exhale. Eventually, enough CO2 would build up in his bloodstream that the pain would begin to numb. At this point, he could push up on his ankles enough to get a breath or two. Meanwhile, the person was bleeding out of the holes in his wrists and ankles - not to mention, in Jesus' case, his back. Jesus was on the cross for six hours, so he would have lost a whole lot of blood.

and yet, it normally took days to die on the cross.

Third, the Roman soldiers, who went to break everyone's legs (to prevent the ability to push up and continue breathing) saw that Jesus was already dead. He still stabbed Jesus in the heart, causing yet another gaping wound, through which flowed even more blood.

PErhaps he missed the heart. Perhaps the media of the day exagerrated his blood loss.

Fourth, the Bible states that Jesus was wrapped, head to toe, in roughly 75 pounds worth of burial cloth.

Perhaps the Bible is wrong. Seems a lot more logical that the Bible be wrong than something impossible happening.

So, for the swoon theory to be correct, Jesus would have had to:
a. Been healed of five major holes (wrists, ankles, heart) and numerous wounds over the course of about 36 hours, without medical attention.
b. Replaced all the blood he lost, without additional nourishment.
c. Remove the 75 pounds of burial cloth, which also covered his nose and mouth, preventing breathing.
d. Roll the large rock away from the mouth of the tomb, by himself.
e. Overcome a 16-man Roman guard, by himself.

Or f). the accounts in the BIble would have to be not accurate. Not a big leap in logic, considering how inconsistent the Gospels are.

It is much more plausible to me, reviewing the evidence, to conclude that God miraculously healed Jesus' body and raised Him from the dead.

It is much more plausible to me, reviewing the contradictions of the Gospels, and the fact that other historical writings from that time disagree, that Jesus survived His crucifixtion.



He was probably one of hundreds of people who were crucified during that time period because they were "blaspheming" the Lord. He was the one who lucked up and survived his Crucifixtion, so logically His followerers would think him the Messiah.

 

[Joz]

....Actually, the whole reason I started this thread was to screw with GOP Jeff, who claims that the Bible can be scientifically proven true. I know most Christians beliefs are based on faith, not some misguided idea that the bible can be proven. My belief in Keeb is based on faith, I can't prove it.

I've met Ron Wyatt, the man who wrote the book, "Discovered: Noah's Ark" and know his family all too well.

Finding the Ark doesn't prove there was a flood. But if what was written about the charteristics and dimensions of the Ark a few thousand years ago, prove to be true, then maybe some of the other stuff just might be true, too.

 

[Hobbit]

Walk into a police station and tell them you saw someone kill someone else. See if that person is convicted based solely on your say-so. Get some friends to go along with it too. Perhaps you can link an example of someone sentenced to death with no physical evidence against them. You know...no body or pieces thereof, no weapon, no confession.

Well, no, but if 4 seperate people come in and say the same guy killed somebody, and only some of these witnesses even met each other, and there was enough of a difference in the testimony to logically conclude that they hadn't compared notes, and they have 500 other people, not all of whom know each other, then I bet you'd see an arrest.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

This is all a matter of faith. Either you have it or you don't. My 2 cents on this is an anecdote.

I once questioned my faith. I went to my pastor with this. He told me, throughout my life, people are going to ask for proof of God. They aren't going to believe in the Passion and are going to discount the Bible as simply a book of stories. This is a certainty. He said that proof of God's existence could be proven on an evidentary basis. He also din't try to prove it to me. He simply asked me if I loved my father. I, of course, replied yes. He then asked me if I knew that my father loved me. I replied in the same. He then asked me to prove it. That was it.

That is faith. Knowing that there is something larger than you and knowing that that entity loves you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You both are ignoring that the evidence for Jesus' death and resurrection is overwhelming.

While I do not doubt that Jesus existed as an historical figure, the story of Jesus' "resurrection" is, like so many other stories, merely one that grew with the telling. The evidence you cite is as much confabulation as it is anecdotal.

As to his death, Jesus was not crucified because of his religious views...There were 'prophets' everywhere one turned in that time and in that place. Jesus was crucified because he was upsetting the political balance, and the Romans simply did not tolerate any threat to their power.

 

[5stringJeff]

THe Passion of the Christ is live footage? Wow.

That's not what I said. The movie was intended to show what Jesus went through, which included a scourging like that shown in the movie. Originally, Pilate had not intended to have Jesus crucified, so he had him flogged instead, hoping that a good flogging would satisfy the Jewish leader's demands for Jesus to be punished.

and yet, it normally took days to die on the cross.

It could take up to two days to die from crucifixion alone, from what I've read. But again, Jesus had been flogged and had already lost a significant amount of blood beforehand, making it less likely that He could have survived for that long.

PErhaps he missed the heart. Perhaps the media of the day exagerrated his blood loss.

"Perhaps" is the best you can do, eh? 'Perhaps' a Roman soldier didn't know how to stab someone in the heart?? That would take more faith than believing in the Resurrection!

Perhaps the Bible is wrong. Seems a lot more logical that the Bible be wrong than something impossible happening.

So that passage, written by John. who was familiar with Jewish burial traditions, was wrong about how Jesus was buried, even though he was an eyewitness to the events?

Or f). the accounts in the BIble would have to be not accurate. Not a big leap in logic, considering how inconsistent the Gospels are.

The "inconsistency" of the gospels is easily refuted. I'll address it separately.

It is much more plausible to me, reviewing the contradictions of the Gospels, and the fact that other historical writings from that time disagree, that Jesus survived His crucifixtion.

He was probably one of hundreds of people who were crucified during that time period because they were "blaspheming" the Lord. He was the one who lucked up and survived his Crucifixtion, so logically His followerers would think him the Messiah.

Ignoring the Biblical evidence out of hand doesn't make a miraculous survival by non-supernatural means plausible.

 

[Dr Grump]

While I do not doubt that Jesus existed as an historical figure, the story of Jesus' "resurrection" is, like so many other stories, merely one that grew with the telling. The evidence you cite is as much confabulation as it is anecdotal.

I concur. Jesus sounds like he was a just person. Son of a god? Uh uh....

 

[Hobbit]

Or f). the accounts in the BIble would have to be not accurate. Not a big leap in logic, considering how inconsistent the Gospels are.

Put ten people in a room, forbid them to talk to each other, and show them a 15 minute video clip. Then, take them into seperate rooms and aske them what they saw. You'll get 10 distinct, but similar, stories.

It is much more plausible to me, reviewing the contradictions of the Gospels, and the fact that other historical writings from that time disagree, that Jesus survived His crucifixtion.

He was probably one of hundreds of people who were crucified during that time period because they were "blaspheming" the Lord. He was the one who lucked up and survived his Crucifixtion, so logically His followerers would think him the Messiah.

Even with the best in medical technology we have now, no one can survive deep, dermal tears across over 90% of his body, severe blood loss (over 4 pints) with no fluid intake for over 48 hours (even with no blood loss, you can die from that), being stabbed in the heart (implying that a Roman imperial soldier missed the heart with a melee weapon on a completely stationary target is like claiming that an Army Ranger could miss the head while firing at a dead man with his muzzle touching the target, except the Ranger has to account for recoil), or being locked in a tomb full of asphyxiating embalming spices for over 36 hours, much less all four in rapid succession. Jesus died. In fact, the Roman records do not dispute this. The official account is that somebody overwhelmed the guards, rolled away the stone, and stole the body in order to claim that he had risen from the dead. And that's still very unlikely, considering how tough and well armed Roman guards were, the fact that no person was killed in the assault, and the fact that a stone for sealing a tomb typically weighed a couple of tons, and was NOT round, like in the pictures.

 

[5stringJeff]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra_res.htm

1. Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

This is not contradictory evidence, only different evidence. Just because a particular detail is left out doesn’t make that evidence wrong; it only makes it incomplete.

2. Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

Mark’s account states that the three of them arrived at the tomb just after sunrise. John’s gospelk states that they left while it was still dark. Not contradictory at all.

3. Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

Again, different but non-contradictory evidence (BTW, John does state in v. 12 that there were two angels there).

4. There is also a discrepancy as to whatever dialogue occurred between this angel(s) or man (men) and the women: Matthew 28:5-7 and Mark 16:6-7 generally agree the women were told that Jesus (peace be upon him) had risen, and instructed to advise the disciples that "He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him" (Matthew 28:7), and ; Luke 24:6-7 contains no instruction to advise the disciples about an appearance by Issa in Galilee.

Again, different but non- contradictory evidence.

5. To whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) appear first: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as Matthew 28:9 claims? Mary Magdalene only as Mark 16:9 claims? Cephas (Peter) and then the other disciples, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 claims? Matthew 28:9 claims that Issa (peace be upon him) appeared before the women even had reported to the disciples what the found (or didnt) at the tomb. Also in Mark 16:9 the appearance to Mary Magdalene was before Mary made any report to the disciples. However, John and Luke report no appearance before the women reported an empty tomb to the disciples.

Again, different but non- contradictory evidence.

6. Which disciples went to the tomb: Peter alone (Luke 24:12)? Peter and John (John 20:2-8)? Did the disciples believe the reports of the women (or woman) and proceed to Galilee, as Matthew 28:16 claims? Or did they disbelieve these reports as Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 claim?

Again, different but non- contradictory evidence. Notice a trend here?

7. In appearing to the disciples, to whom did Jesus (peace be upon him) first appear: All eleven together (Matthew 28:17-18)? Two of them on the road, then to all eleven together (Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31)? To ten of the eleven (minus Thomas) together (John 20:19-24)? To Peter, then the others (1 Corinthians 15:5)? The story recounted in John 20:25-29 is all premised on an appearance of Jesus (peace be upon him) before the disciples at which Thomas was not present! Matthew 28:17-18, Mark 16:12-14 and Luke 24:13-31 all disagree with John about any such meeting taking place in the absence of Thomas!

Again, different but non- contradictory evidence. And Luke clearly states that the two that Jesus appeared to on the road to Emmaus were separate from the Eleven.

8. In Acts and the Gospel of Luke, the disciples were commanded to stay in Jerusalem and, in fact, met Jesus (peace be upon him) there (see Acts 1:4 and Luke 24:33, 47, 49). In Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:6-7, the disciples are commanded to go to Galilee, and in Matthew 28:16-18, we are told they see Jesus (peace be upon him) there, not in or near Jerusalem!

Again, different but non- contradictory evidence. Jesus did indeed instruct the disciples not to leave Jerusalem, as He was ascending. However, he did not ascend right away – He was on earth for 40 days.

9. Mark says that after appearing before the eleven disciples together in Gallilee, Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven (Mark 16: 14, 19). Luke says Jesus (peace be upon him) ascended to Heaven at Bethany after walking with the disciples some time (Luke 24:50-51). John says Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to the disciples at three times and that some of these appearances were near the Sea of Gallilee (Lake Tiberias) (John 21:1, 14). According to Acts the disciples were at Mt. Olivet, a days journey from Jerusalem, when the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9-12).

Again, different but non- contradictory evidence.

10. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, it is claimed that Jesus (peace be upon him) appeared to more than five hundred witnesses before his ascent to heaven - a claim directly contradicted at least by Mark, who says the ascension occurred immediately after an appearance before the eleven disciples (Mark 16: 14, 19).

The original author is incorrect in his assertion that Mark says that Jesus ascended immediately after His first appearance to the Eleven. Mark only records that “when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16:19, NASB) As the other gospels show, Jesus appeared and spoke to the disciples several times, over the course of 40 days, which would have given Him plenty of time to appear the the 500 Paul references.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I concur. Jesus sounds like he was a just person. Son of a god? Uh uh....

Like I said. It is faith.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, no, but if 4 seperate people come in and say the same guy killed somebody, and only some of these witnesses even met each other, and there was enough of a difference in the testimony to logically conclude that they hadn't compared notes, and they have 500 other people, not all of whom know each other, then I bet you'd see an arrest.

If 4 people come in and say that they were all abducted by aliens, the courts would believe that, too.

In fact thousands of witnesses who do not know one another all recount similar alien abduction stories and will swear it if you ask them to.

THis obviously does not mean aliens are abducting us.

Murder is a natural event. Aliens and rising from the dead are not.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That's not what I said. The movie was intended to show what Jesus went through, which included a scourging like that shown in the movie. Originally, Pilate had not intended to have Jesus crucified, so he had him flogged instead, hoping that a good flogging would satisfy the Jewish leader's demands for Jesus to be punished.



It could take up to two days to die from crucifixion alone, from what I've read. But again, Jesus had been flogged and had already lost a significant amount of blood beforehand, making it less likely that He could have survived for that long.



"Perhaps" is the best you can do, eh? 'Perhaps' a Roman soldier didn't know how to stab someone in the heart?? That would take more faith than believing in the Resurrection!



So that passage, written by John. who was familiar with Jewish burial traditions, was wrong about how Jesus was buried, even though he was an eyewitness to the events?



The "inconsistency" of the gospels is easily refuted. I'll address it separately.



Ignoring the Biblical evidence out of hand doesn't make a miraculous survival by non-supernatural means plausible.

The Bible is mere anecdotal evidence. There are many other historical accounts which disagree with the Bible, for instance, the gnostic gospels. The church simply chooses to not include these as the "truth" of the Bible because it doesn't tell them what they want to here. You are cherry picking historical accounts to get the story you want to hear.


Are you suggesting Roman Soldiers never, ever, ever ever ever made mistakes, ever ever ever?

 

[Annie]

The Bible is mere anecdotal evidence. There are many other historical accounts which disagree with the Bible, for instance, the gnostic gospels. The church simply chooses to not include these as the "truth" of the Bible because it doesn't tell them what they want to here. You are cherry picking historical accounts to get the story you want to hear.

Why do the gnostics have more validity than those in the bible? In your opinion?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Put ten people in a room, forbid them to talk to each other, and show them a 15 minute video clip. Then, take them into seperate rooms and aske them what they saw. You'll get 10 distinct, but similar, stories.

GOt a link to that experiment?

Even with the best in medical technology we have now, no one can survive deep, dermal tears across over 90% of his body, severe blood loss (over 4 pints) with no fluid intake for over 48 hours (even with no blood loss, you can die from that), being stabbed in the heart (implying that a Roman imperial soldier missed the heart with a melee weapon on a completely stationary target is like claiming that an Army Ranger could miss the head while firing at a dead man with his muzzle touching the target, except the Ranger has to account for recoil), or being locked in a tomb full of asphyxiating embalming spices for over 36 hours, much less all four in rapid succession.

You just said that people don't remember details right sometimes. Considering the Gospels were written dozens of years after this event, would it be too far of a stretch to suggest the authors may not have perfect memory?

Heck, perhaps they even elaborated.

Jesus died. In fact, the Roman records do not dispute this. The official account is that somebody overwhelmed the guards, rolled away the stone, and stole the body in order to claim that he had risen from the dead.

I'd like to see these Roman records and this "official account"

And that's still very unlikely, considering how tough and well armed Roman guards were,

Perhaps they screwed off while on guard and got drunk.

Oh, wait, I forgot, Roman soldiers were infallible human beings who never, ever, ever, ever, , ever, , ever, , ever, , ever, made any single mistakes.

the fact that no person was killed in the assault, and the fact that a stone for sealing a tomb typically weighed a couple of tons, and was NOT round, like in the pictures.

I'm sure no one was ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, bribed in ancient Rome, either.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This is not contradictory evidence, only different evidence. Just because a particular detail is left out doesn’t make that evidence wrong; it only makes it incomplete.

Was it one, two, or three women, and what were their names?


One account says one, one two, two three and the two who say three do not agree on their names.

Which one is correct?

 

[Annie]

GOt a link to that experiment?




You just said that people don't remember details right sometimes. Considering the Gospels were written dozens of years after this event, would it be too far of a stretch to suggest the authors may not have perfect memory?

Heck, perhaps they even elaborated.



I'd like to see these Roman records and this "official account"



Perhaps they screwed off while on guard and got drunk.

Oh, wait, I forgot, Roman soldiers were infallible human beings who never, ever, ever, ever, , ever, , ever, , ever, , ever, made any single mistakes.



I'm sure no one was ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, bribed in ancient Rome, either.

Why would anyone take your picture over another? You haven't provided more, in fact you ask the reader to dismiss others on nothing. You are a waste. See what has been done with Darwins friend. Seriously, I don't see a difference.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why do the gnostics have more validity than those in the bible? In your opinion?

Why would they have less?

The Church and all Christians choose to disbelieve the accounts simply because it does not agee with the Bible. Their logic is circular. They assert the Bible is correct because the bible is correct.

At least, folks like gop_gef who actually believe they can "prove" the Bible correct do.