Did the Christians lie about Jesus Resurrection? Jesus did not die by Crucifiction!

reply to post by chr0naut


No, you are taking my meaning the wrong way. You are also saying things you cannot know. The Illusion of sepperation is for us to learn. I am not saying I dustytoad am perfect or godly or anything like that. I am a good person. I am not talking about my soul either, well not exactly.

I am speaking on something else,

but I see that even if you got it (not your fault you don't but human words fail, Jesus had the same issue hence this confusion now) you would still disagree.

So We'll just disagree then.

Iv'e already said too much anyway. I am not supposed to talk about it, since it tempts our egos too much hubris is a bad thing.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

The water came from the pericardial and pleural effusions from the scourging and subsequent asphyxiation.

This is all detailed in a report made by the AMA. But what do doctors know right?

You are playing parrot again and running off in only a single direction, similar to reading one book.

So, you tell us there was a doctor in attendance that witnessed the whole thing, else you are making suppositions again.

There are other ways for such to happen with blood and clear liquid. One such is hitting the Spleen that is full of a watery liquid. It does tell the Roman poked a hole in Jesus side with a lance. There is no mention of poking a hole in the heart.

It would be unusual for a lance going through the ribs and lung to hit the heart and then to expect the lung open volume not to catch all the emissions from the heart.

Blood and clear liquid coming from a poke in the side to hit the spleen means Jesus was still alive.


Which means no big miracles, Jesus wasn't ever god. He just survived a major trauma. He moved away from the ugly games of his Disciples and nutty Pharisee of the period that attempted to do just what you are doing.

The issue of Christ dies for man's sins has everything to do with them trying to make Jesus as god, which is a big blasphemy, and one principle issue that had him killed. Jesus would never have been nailed to a tree had it not been for the religious insanity of those determined to tell Jesus was god.

Jesus was thought dead perhaps and was taken to the tomb, but found not to be lifeless, yet could not be moved due to the wound. So, several days later he can be moved. No big miracles there.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


"On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ", JAMA. 1986;255(20):2752

"The AMA and Torture", JAMA. 1986;256(8):998

"Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion", JRSM. 2006;99(4):185-188

"Does the horizontal position increase risk of rescue death following suspension trauma?", Emerg. Med. J.. 2009;26(12):896-898


The Abstract, you'll need to make an account to view the entire PDF:

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

(JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)

www.jama.ama-assn.org...

reply to post by NOTurTypical


All based upon pure suppositions. It is a theory. They didn't even look for alternate explanations.

One can also present the theme of lance in the side hitting the spleen and a clear liquid and blood was emitted, meaning that he was still alive.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Iason321

 

That was my point. I am god by the way...

and what a puny god you are.

edit on 4/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

I have a hard time believing in a god that needs..well, should find the need to use toilet paper.

One thing is for sure---Jesus left the crazy Jerusalem and never returned to this Disciples since.

=======

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

The Crucifixion Was A Fraud

========


All the Bible Narrative is nutty non-sense on a human being god. Back to Pagan nonsense.

If there was a god, that had all the power, he would not need Jesus.

There would never have been this 6,000 years of pure nonsense.

Free PDF book. Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by manna2

But you are correct, it is Yashayah, I added an h where it didn't belong.

Hebrew is an all consonant language, the vowels do not matter. Some say the aramaic Yeshua, Yahshua, Yashuwah, Yahoshua, Yehoshua, Yahushuwah. You're better off just going with the aramaic or greek Jesus.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

All based upon pure suppositions. It is a theory. They didn't even look for alternate explanations.

One can also present the theme of lance in the side hitting the spleen and a clear liquid and blood was emitted, meaning that he was still alive.

edit on 4-4-2012 by MagnumOpus because: The blood and clear liquid means he was living.

^^^ Yep, this!

The real "nail in coffin" to the resurrection idea is the fact that he was up and about. He was seen, by many, to be walking, talking and allowing people to probe his injuries. The fact that he was eating implies that he would have needed something akin to toilet paper, as well.

ANY doctor that takes these eye witnesses into account and still makes a diagnosis of death is a QUACK!

Jumping to the conclusion that he was resurrected is just wishful thinking and the only thing that can link the idea that Jesus died for the sins of the world or that that he is god. You can't have any of it if he didn't die. The great lie is exposed!

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

All based upon pure suppositions. It is a theory. They didn't even look for alternate explanations.

One can also present the theme of lance in the side hitting the spleen and a clear liquid and blood was emitted, meaning that he was still alive.

edit on 4-4-2012 by MagnumOpus because: The blood and clear liquid means he was living.

Didn't read a single PDF.

Its all based upon the accounts in the gospels and the doctors knowledge of modern medicine. The chief writer has performed over 15000 autopsies.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by manna2

 

But you are correct, it is Yashayah, I added an h where it didn't belong.

Hebrew is an all consonant language, the vowels do not matter. Some say the aramaic Yeshua, Yahshua, Yashuwah, Yahoshua, Yehoshua, Yahushuwah. You're better off just going with the aramaic or greek Jesus.

Yep, and His name means "YHWH saves". His name is a consecrated name, it must contain the name of His Father.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


OP, I think not. So many Christians died horrible deaths including all the apostles except John. You don't proclaim something that is a lie and be willing to die for it.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


I really don't think it would have mattered WHAT they proclaimed at the time. They belonged to a group that was famous, hated, targeted and hunted down. Jesus was put through the trauma, why wouldn't they, his followers, be targeted as well. There was no turning back for them.

Your argument doesn't prove the resurrection.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

All based upon pure suppositions. It is a theory. They didn't even look for alternate explanations.

One can also present the theme of lance in the side hitting the spleen and a clear liquid and blood was emitted, meaning that he was still alive.

edit on 4-4-2012 by MagnumOpus because: The blood and clear liquid means he was living.

Didn't read a single PDF.

Its all based upon the accounts in the gospels and the doctors knowledge of modern medicine. The chief writer has performed over 15000 autopsies.

I wasn't able to read the PDFs on that site, as it asked for a paid subscription to view. I was, however, able to view an abstract from one of the articles.

On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ

Gerschon Suster, MD; Israel Suster
[+] Author Affiliations
Dallas
Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text.
EXCERPT

To the Editor.— In the article, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,"1 a historically inaccurate version of the events leading to Jesus' death is portrayed (although I am not disputing the physiopathological assertions). The reliance of Edwards et al on the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as a primary basis for deriving historical data is unfounded. The Gospels are a set of theological documents that are not necessarily historical. The reliance on the scriptures as a source of scientific inquiry pertaining to the actual history of Jesus has been refuted by biblical scholars.2-4

The many accounts of Jesus' death have been tainted by the lack of scientific empiricism on behalf of religious historians attempting to record his life. The authors of the Gospels were not fundamentally interested in recording reliable historical data.

So, you see, even your own site's doctors are arguing the validity of their assertions.

reply to post by windword


People disagree, hasn't that happened for 2,000 years now? This thread wouldn't exist if that weren't the case.

Notice anything interesting about that Dr's name?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

People disagree, hasn't that happened for 2,000 years now? This thread wouldn't exist if that weren't the case.

Notice anything interesting about that Dr's name?

Gerschon Suster, MD; Israel Suster

Yeah, your point? There's a lot of people named Israel, Jesus, Ezekiel, John, Noah....

reply to post by MagnumOpus


The early Christians did not Lie about Jesus Resurrection, do you think they would die for a lie? The early Christians were the most persecuted people on the planet at that time. All they had to do to avoid death was 'deny Jesus as Lord' and they would be let free. The Catholic church wasn't made until 300 years after Jesus' death and the romans adopted it as there main religions because they couldn't kill the Christians.. There is no evidence that Jesus' went to india, those claims are unfounded and are speculation at most. That link you posted is nothing but lies. Anyone who denies Jesus' died on the cross and rose again is the Anti Christ.

reply to post by windword


I was talking about "Gerschon".

That's a Hebrew name.

Now re-evaluate my question with that in mind.

Also consider Dr. Suster (A Hebrew surname) is a pediatric gastroenterlogist (stomach/intestine), and the chief MD who wrote the article is a Pathologist who's performed over 15,000 autopsies.

Would you go see a foot doctor for a brain tumor? We're trying to see what the professionals have to say about a man's cause of death. You have to be joking.

You're just trolling at this point.

Just like most of the world doesn't go to the guy with the Cross of Tammuz, Babylon, and Roman Empire, we'd tend to go to the guy that has heard about Spleens, knows puncture wounds to the gut area, and has the common sense not to buy into the Bible fairy tales.

There was no Cross, there was a tree.

There was no death and resurrection, because Jesus survived the trauma and was taken down early.

The Christians are nothing but the Pagans of old Babylon, the Serpents in the churches telling tales.

They harm the message of Jesus and Pervert that message toward Empire.


They cause so much problems in America with delusional thought that they really need to be banned in the same sense that Russia had to crack down on crazy religion that interferred with Govt.

Should not religions that are booster clubs for Zionism be declaired as Foreign Agents working in Affairs of State and interferring with such as agents for a Foreign Government. imho

I think it is time to legislate the end of the organized church that promotes false teachings. imho

Originally posted by windword
EXCERPT

The many accounts of Jesus' death have been tainted by the lack of scientific empiricism on behalf of religious historians attempting to record his life. The authors of the Gospels were not fundamentally interested in recording reliable historical data.

So, you see, even your own site's doctors are arguing the validity of their assertions.

========

That is a highly insightful observation.

And even if the person is Jewish, most all the Jewish folk still say Jesus was not god. The Zionist Jewish in Israel see the Christians as huge story tellers of lies. In Isreal the Jewish spit on the Christians and despise the Christian Churches.

So, even in the Holy Land the Christians are still hated, because they so altered the truth.


In the Holy Land, Jesus was accoused of being Satan over his disciples telling he was god. And most of them died over telling the same thing later on.