America: The cursed burnt offering for the age to come.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

To verfy His death, the guard pierced His abdominal cavity to witness the clotted blood cells and separated plasma run from the wound.

Ummm, no.

It was blood and water. My husband had an pleural empyema a few years ago, and they stuck a tube in his chest and drained it out. Liters of it. It was not "blood clots and separated plasma". It was watery, yellowish, bloody fluid.

Caused by a broken rib and pneumonia.
He nearly died. I sat there and watched the fluid being drained from his chest.
This silly idea that Jesus was stabbed 'through the heart' is ridiculous.

Otherwise, this thread is all yours, guys. Just don't tell lies.

In your husbands case the broken rib caused the bleeding. In this case a spear piercing the heart caused the bleeding. This silly idea of yours that you can interpret the bible because your husband had a similar condition is just ridiculous.

a reply to: Maigret

The Son knew exactly what he was talking about!

It wasn't from studying interpretations of old prophecies.
It was from new prophecy that he was given.

I've already shown you that.

You may have said that, but I don't recall you "showing" in a convincing manner.

You have to be able to understand Daniel and what he was saying, so that you can understand what he meant.

No you don't, Jesus was using one concept from Daniel, an "abomination of desolation", whatever that is, and applying it to another event, without specifying that it was a similar or the same event.

All these different versions of the same verse you've quoted, all basically say the same thing.

They don't have the "setting up" part.
Your use of that part supports your argument that it is a specific physical object, rather than a bigger conceptual situation.

a reply to: Logarock

This silly idea of yours . . .

Don't be mean.
She was just trying to be helpful rather than argumentative.

originally posted by: Logarock
In this case a spear piercing the heart caused the bleeding.

Not so. No water in the heart, blood thickens and clots after death, besides, dead people don't bleed. Blood becomes stationary. Besides, the heart is straight in the center of your chest, Jesus was pierced in the side.

I'd love to see you back up your serum plasma heartbleed theory and how it would be possible for people to treat a punctured heart at the time of Jesus.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: Logarock

This silly idea of yours . . .

Don't be mean.
She was just trying to be helpful rather than argumentative.

LOL! Helpful here would be a cardiologist.

a reply to: Logarock
Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross –
A Cardiologist’s Perspective

CONCLUSION

Thus, with knowledge of both anatomy and ancient crucifixion practices, it is not difficult to reconstruct the probable medical aspects of crucifixion from a cardiologist’s perspective. It is extremely likely that Jesus Christ(as) sustained an injury to the pericardium during the process of scourging. The sharp pieces of sheep bones in the whip caused deep cuts in the pericardium. This resulted in accumulation of blood in the pericardial cavity.

While on the cross, the process of blood accumulation continued. This resulted in cardiac tamponade with hemodynamic disturbance, a condition that caused the heart to struggle, as it was unable to pump blood against free blood in the coverings of the heart, leading to low blood pressure and pulse. In such a predicament, the cardiac output dropped and the brain was deprived of oxygen. It was most likely at this critical stage of hemodynamic disturbance, i.e. low blood pressure and heart rate that Jesus Christ(as) cried out in a loud voice, bowed his head and became unconscious.

The piercing of the spear in the chest aimed at the heart created a rent in the outer layer of the pericardium. This resulted in decompression of the heart ‘as blood and water gushed out.’ The increase in cardiac output as the heart was decompressed resulted in improvement of oxygen to the brain. The arrival of Joseph of Arimethia and Nicodemus, an experienced physician, further lend support that Jesus(as) survived the ordeal of crucifixion. The application of strong spices and salves at this stage was essential to prevent the wounds from infection and relief of pain. They probably employed artificial respiration when they ‘blew into him their own breath’ after Jesus(as) was brought down from the cross.

Also, the wound of the spear was left open to drain, as ‘Nicodemus believed that it was best not to close up the wound in Jesus’(as) side because he considered that flow of blood and water from there was helpful to respiration in the renewing of life.’

This practice is well known amongst cardiologists to prevent reaccumulation of blood in the pericardial cavity.

Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus Christ(as) did not die on the Cross but was delivered alive and then treated. - See more at: www.reviewofreligions.org...

There you go. And that above is just the CONCLUSION of the article (in case you missed that word at the beginning of the ex-text. You can go read the rest if you're interested (which I'm sure you're not).

Asked for, and provided. (oh, and also - why on Earth would you think after having sustained a scourging his ribs would not have been broken??) The above shows that it was a pleural or possibly pericardial effusion. See? I even gave you some leeway, even though I think, as Utnapisjtim said above, it was more likely into his lung. Common injury. Common treatment even now - open it up and drain it.

The 'pierced THROUGH the heart' idea is a sensationalist fantasy.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
(oh, and also - why on Earth would you think after having sustained a scourging his ribs would not have been broken??)

Actually, you don't need to have any bones broken for your lung to burst and collapse, for I guess the "Christians" here refer to Psalms 34:20 "He keeps all his [U: the righteous man's] bones; not one of them is broken."

When my lung collapsed, no bones were broken, but one of them bubbles or whatever you'd call them burst probably because I've been a heavy smoker most my life, and my left lung collapsed with the inside pressure on the lung rose fast and steadily, and after a few minutes I could no longer breathe properly so I nearly "gave up my spirit", but I was discovered by a police patrol who drove me straight to the hospital where I was "pierced in the side and blood and water flowed from the wound". While lying there I came to think of the Jebus, how my lung experience was very similar to what happened at Calvary, I thanked the Daddy I lived to tell the tale.

However, the most likely scenario in this case of the Jebus, is that his lung probably collapsed from a broken rib piercing into his lung.

BTW: Thanks for your efforts here and great theory, much obliged eventhough my theory is different, the cariologist's explanation is indeed plausible. Another thing to note here, that I forgot earlier, was that Nicodemus who was present at Calvary, was a trained physician. Nice to have a doctor at the scene.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross –
A Cardiologist’s Perspective

There was a whole thread on that book a while back by wildtimes.

edit to add: I am probably wrong about who started the thread, I'm looking for it.
Also I am apparently wrong about which book I was thinking of, but it had a similar title to the article you linked to. Looking for that too.

edit to add: OK, I found the thread.
The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wildtimes started posting on page 5, then I apparently forgot who actually had started the thread.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

However, the most likely scenario in this case of the Jebus, is that his lung probably collapsed from a broken rib piercing into his lung.

Which is exactly what happened to my husband.
Fortunately the tube worked, and he didn't have to undergo surgery. But he still feels the jolt in his lower right lung when he turns funny or bends a certain way....we think perhaps a chip was embedded in the lining and is still 'resorbing.'

Thanks for your support of my idea.


ETA: I read some of your posts, and don't necessarily disagree with your theory. I'll read it some more, but so far, from what I've seen of your posts, I have no objections to it.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Thanks, I'll have to review it.

I did notice that the article references several books I've read, but I haven't seen this doc before.
I was simply looking for info for Logarock - so he would feel more secure with my premise. Like a good troll should do, ya know! Bring up facts and other opinions, rather than looking at only one text.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Im still waiting on the rest of the details of your "swooning" theory, and historical references that back it up. Until then, all you have stated was opinion. Effusion or not the concensus is that Jesus died on the cross...unless you can PROVE otherwise.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Thanks! I'll look at it.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thanks, I'll have to review it.

Here's a quote from a post by wildtimes in that thread that I mentioned, that you might find interesting.

I sat in the hospital for 11 days with my husband, who had suffered a broken rib on his right side that led to pneumonia and empyema . . .
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The story continues on in another post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit to add: It seems that there was another thread that branched off from this one (that I linked to) that brought up a serious medical book that I was thinking of earlier.
I'll have to look some more. I know I commented on it and I thought that I put it on my Amazon book wish list. I didn't buy it because it was like $150.

Since the site is not letting me further edit my last post:
wildtimes did start her own thread called The resurrection. Help, please.

Edit to add: that doesn't have the book either, so there must have been a third thread somewhere.

Edit to add: I did find the book in the hundreds of titles on my Amazon book wish lists.

Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion by Gunnar Samuelsson.

Putting that in the abovetopsecret search, it produces the "third" thread, where wildtimes mentions it in this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems that rather than "a serious medical book" like I mentioned earlier, it is more like archaeological forensics.

I'm not suggesting anyone resurrecting any old threads, but that there were some resources mentioned in those three threads that may be useful to add to the knowledge base of this thread.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Im still waiting on the rest of the details of your "swooning" theory, and historical references that back it up. Until then, all you have stated was opinion. Effusion or not the concensus is that Jesus died on the cross...unless you can PROVE otherwise.

I need "historical references" to a story with no historic validity, which no other texts than the Bible and related texts refer to. That's a tough one. Unless you already know, even proving Jesus' existence is impossible with the sources we have, much less proving he died or survived, we have no records of the guy except for the Jesus-tradition of retelling old mythical stories calling them "good news".

When discussing Jesus, fact is you are left with opinion and faith, deal with it. I am not a physician, a historian or otherwise, but I have provided first hand knowledge of what happens when you puncture a lung, and have shown that it's plausible Jesus suffered just that, since all factors are covered and a punctured lung explains every symptom mentioned. He was severely beaten with instruments that could easily break ribs that could puncture the lung, or bring about trauma enough to collapse the lung in other ways. He was short of air, explaining why he was silent at Pilate's, why he was unable to carry his cross, how he ended up giving up his spirit (lit. stopped breathing).

Piercing the chest is the first thing a surgeon does in the process of treating a punctured lung, primarily to relieve air pressure, secondarily to drain the chest of blood and water from the punctured lung, again, exactly what the story describes. There were several people present at Calvary who were trained in treating this condition, the Roman soldiers were trained in treating many common war injuries among them punctured lung, and Jesus' friend Nicodemus would be the perfect man to bring to the tomb, being a trained physician. And of course, Rosemary and the other women brought disinfectants and remedies to the tomb, for treating living people, not dead ones. I also believe that the white clad men Rosemary identifies as angels by the tomb, were Essene healers. They were always dressed in white, just like doctors today.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Like a good troll should do, ya know! Bring up facts and other opinions, rather than looking at only one text.

Couldn't help but grin when I read the above. Being able to provide subtle statements like the above is an art you seem to handle well

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I need "historical references" to a story with no historic validity, which no other texts than the Bible and related texts refer to. That's a tough one. Unless you already know, even proving Jesus' existence is impossible with the sources we have, much less proving he died or survived, we have no records of the guy except for the Jesus-tradition of retelling old mythical stories calling them "good news".

You could look for evidence in pseudopigrapha. If you consider Bible to be mythology, then counter it with mythology. My point is that you have done nothing but propose an unsupported conspiracy theory about an event you dont even believe took place. If you think Im crazy for my faith in Jesus, how much crazier do you look for arguing with what you consider a mad man? Whats the point of trying to disprove the death of a man that you dont believe ever existed? Thats what confuses me.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I need "historical references" to a story with no historic validity, which no other texts than the Bible and related texts refer to. That's a tough one. Unless you already know, even proving Jesus' existence is impossible with the sources we have, much less proving he died or survived, we have no records of the guy except for the Jesus-tradition of retelling old mythical stories calling them "good news".

You could look for evidence in pseudopigrapha. If you consider Bible to be mythology, then counter it with mythology. My point is that you have done nothing but propose an unsupported conspiracy theory about an event you dont even believe took place. If you think Im crazy for my faith in Jesus, how much crazier do you look for arguing with what you consider a mad man? Whats the point of trying to disprove the death of a man that you dont believe ever existed? Thats what confuses me.

I believe alright, but I don't need proof for that. That's why it's called faith. Right? And pseudepigrapha? Well that's even more mythical than the Bible.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I need "historical references" to a story with no historic validity, which no other texts than the Bible and related texts refer to. That's a tough one. Unless you already know, even proving Jesus' existence is impossible with the sources we have, much less proving he died or survived, we have no records of the guy except for the Jesus-tradition of retelling old mythical stories calling them "good news".

You could look for evidence in pseudopigrapha. If you consider Bible to be mythology, then counter it with mythology. My point is that you have done nothing but propose an unsupported conspiracy theory about an event you dont even believe took place. If you think Im crazy for my faith in Jesus, how much crazier do you look for arguing with what you consider a mad man? Whats the point of trying to disprove the death of a man that you dont believe ever existed? Thats what confuses me.

I believe alright, but I don't need proof for that. That's why it's called faith. Right? And pseudepigrapha? Well that's even more mythical than the Bible.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe only what you want about Jesus. The gospels say He died, but that isnt koshur with you, so you just patch up the account with theory. That doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems more like cherry picking than faith.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
So, if I understand you correctly, you believe only what you want about Jesus.

Indeed, just like everybody else. I feel no obligation to Origen or Augustine or any other guy who did like me and thought for themselves. Science isn't made by quoting and adhering. Truth doesnot suffer under scrutiny. Doctrine and dogma does.

And. Back then you were dead when you broke a leg. It was a lifethreatening injury, several Egyptian pharaohes dies from broken bones. Back when Jesus "died", you were concidered dead if you didn't breathe (and "let the dead bury their dead"), so using that parameter, Jesus died. But his heart beat. I've been there. Using the terms and definitions of 2000 years ago, I must have been dead more than 100 times. But I am still alive. What do you call the linuistic term for when you are called a dead man when you do something stupid, or a million dollar man because you wrote and sang a new song that had potential? Brazeni? Jesus was dead before we figured out the Truth. Wen Truth was found and he told us everything, we were disapointed, but atleast Jesus lived to tell the tale. Right?

Remember that "with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Jesus was dead. That was what we were told. Now we know better.