The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

And Psalm 22 says "in the midst of my bowels", that's His intestines.

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint:
my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

What has any of this ^ got to do with his side being pierced?

It doesn't. it's talking about His intestines "bowels".

reply to post by novastrike81


"Flogged" and "scourged" are the same thing. Just different translations of the same Greek word.

Congrats, you impeached NUT's claims and caught another lie.

There is no story of guts hanging out, just a little figure of speech on how tired his heart was from the stress.

This is becoming a pattern with NUT on making false claims.

reply to post by windword

There you go again with the assumptions and exaggerations. If the writers of the bible wanted it to say "chest" it would say chest. It does not. It says he was pierced in the side.

The side is the point of the body where the spear-tip entered. The "blood and water" that came out of the wound is what the Pathologists used to determine how far that spear tip entered the body. It means the pericardial sac was pierced. The gospel writers were not double-doctorate world renowned pathologists, they just wrote what they saw with their eyes. They weren't Pathologists.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Congrats, you impeached NUT's claims and caught another lie.

There is no story of guts hanging out, just a little figure of speech on how tired his heart was from the stress.

This is becoming a pattern with NUT on making false claims.

I always said that information came from Psalm 22. It's a prophecy written first-person singular as Christ hung on the cross. The information about His beard being plucked out comes from Isaiah.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

The side is the point of the body where the spear-tip entered. The "blood and water" that came out of the wound is what the Pathologists used to determine how far that spear tip entered the body. It means the pericardial sac was pierced. The gospel writers were not double-doctorate world renowned pathologists, they just wrote what they saw with their eyes. They weren't Pathologists.

Maybe they weren't pathologists, but I'm pretty sure they knew the difference of being stabbed in the heart with a Roman spear, and being stabbed in the side, by a s Roman spear.

For Jesus to have been stabbed in the heart, ribs would have been broken. They weren't.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I always said that information came from Psalm 22. It's a prophecy written first-person singular as Christ hung on the cross. The information about His beard being plucked out comes from Isaiah.

Your information is wrong. There is no record of Jesus even having a beard, little alone it being plucked out. Again, your prophecy fails.

reply to post by windword


I read (through research) that the spear pierced his right side, between the 4th and 5th rib....

and anyway, if he'd been dead already there would not have been water and blood flowing. His blood would have pooled....a dead body does not BLEED. The shroud shows bleeding from the cut, from the hands and feet.....if he had been dead (like my dad was the last time I hugged him) his body would only have emitted a tiny amount of fluid/blood and then stopped.

sigh.
I'm so over this nonsense.....

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I always said that information came from Psalm 22. It's a prophecy written first-person singular as Christ hung on the cross. The information about His beard being plucked out comes from Isaiah.

Your information is wrong. There is no record of Jesus even having a beard, little alone it being plucked out. Again, your prophecy fails.

Okay, there is a flip-side to that coin ya know. There is no record of Jesus not having a beard, or not having it plucked out. I'll trust Isaiah, the same Isaiah who wrote chapter 53.

"I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." -Isaiah 50:6

reply to post by wildtimes

and anyway, if he'd been dead already there would not have been water and blood flowing.

Before you go because of this nonsense, listen to what the doctor says in to OP about why the water and blood came from the chest wound of a deceased Man.

He explains that. You can't read the AMA report unless you subscribe to their website or buy the booklet.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by windword

 

The side is the point of the body where the spear-tip entered. The "blood and water" that came out of the wound is what the Pathologists used to determine how far that spear tip entered the body. It means the pericardial sac was pierced. The gospel writers were not double-doctorate world renowned pathologists, they just wrote what they saw with their eyes. They weren't Pathologists.

Maybe they weren't pathologists, but I'm pretty sure they knew the difference of being stabbed in the heart with a Roman spear, and being stabbed in the side, by a s Roman spear.

For Jesus to have been stabbed in the heart, ribs would have been broken. They weren't.

They didn't have x-ray vision. All they could see is the spear entered His side and when it was pulled out blood and "water" came from the wound. That's all they could see from their perspective. If it entered the right side under the ribcage the tip would have only had to intrude 10-12 inches. This was standard Roman protocol for removal of a corpse for burial, something requested from Joseph and granted by Pilate. The Jews also asked for the hastened death of the thieves crucified with Him.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

the chest wound

chest wound? A spear in the right side between two right-side ribs is not a "chest wound".
Whatever, NuT.
carry on.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

the chest wound

chest wound? A spear in the right side between two right-side ribs is not a "chest wound".
Whatever, NuT.
carry on.

What do you consider the "chest cavity"? Consider the vantage point of the soldier under the crucified Christ, looking up and thrusting his spear upwards where would the tip of the spear protrude into? Now consider the significance of the "blood and water" that came from the wound and what the doctors said that implies.

What do they say that implies? It's in the short video in the OP.






Anatomy: Thoratic cavity

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What do you consider the "chest cavity"? Consider the vantage point of the soldier under the crucified Christ, looking up and thrusting his spear upwards where would the tip of the spear protrude into? Now consider the significance of the "blood and water" that came from the wound and what the doctors said that implies.

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 (I'd say look it up, but I know you won't...it's a build-up of the fluid in the lung sac...not IN the lung, but in the LINING of the lung.... he was in critical condition, wound up later in ICU, with the suggestion of surgery proffered...and survived....)

The problem was nowhere near his heart..... it was his right lower lung lobe. I watched the poison being drained as it filled up the machine to which the tube (suction) was attached.....liters of it.
it was watery/bloody fluid.

He was not dead. He did, however, go into shock during the procedures.....
so don't talk to me about lung injuries.

I'm gone here.
Buena suerte.

reply to post by windword

Maybe they weren't pathologists, but I'm pretty sure they knew the difference of being stabbed in the heart with a Roman spear, and being stabbed in the side, by a s Roman spear.

The cross was elevated, the roman soldiers stabbed upward at an angle and could have very easily pierced his heart. Dusk was falling and Passover was about to begin. He had to be dead and in his tomb before darkness fell or it would have defiled the Passover. Makes perfect sense if you thought the man was alive and he needed to be in the ground, to finish the deed so you could hurry and shove him into the ground. This wasn't just any sabbath it was a High Sabbath.

According to ancient jewish burial rites, you must be buried the same day you die on. Dusk was approaching, if he wasn't dead they were going to kill him and this meant a strike at his heart to make it quick because they could then immediately pull him off the cross and shove his corpse into the tomb before the high sabbath began, piercing the heart would have been faster than breaking the legs as they did with the 2 thieves.

Here's how long a roman spear head is:



This thing would have done the job easily.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
What do you consider the "chest cavity"? Consider the vantage point of the soldier under the crucified Christ, looking up and thrusting his spear upwards where would the tip of the spear protrude into? Now consider the significance of the "blood and water" that came from the wound and what the doctors said that implies.

What do they say that implies? It's in the short video in the OP.

The thoracic cavity or "chest cavity" is all that stuff under your ribs, in a nutshell. NuT's picture sums it nicely.

NuT's use of the words chest wound I'd say is fairly accurate. We call stab and gunshot wounds to the chest "sucking chest wounds" because that's what they are, if they produce that sucking noise upon inspiration.

Your lungs are also capable of producing water in the linings of the lungs when you go into hypovolemic shock. So I still think it's up in the air on the whereabouts of Jesus' injury. That's really the only issue I've had all along was the way the scripture worded it.

To be clear, it's not water that is in the pericardial sac, it's a clear fluid. So to any normal person it would look like water.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

the chest wound

chest wound? A spear in the right side between two right-side ribs is not a "chest wound".
Whatever, NuT.
carry on.

chest (chst)
n.
The part of the body between the neck and the abdomen, enclosed by the ribs and the breastbone; thorax.

tho·rax (thôrks)
n. pl. tho·rax·es or tho·ra·ces (thôr-sz)
1. The part of the human body between the neck and the diaphragm, partially encased by the ribs and containing the heart and lungs; the chest.
2. A part in other vertebrates that corresponds to the human thorax.
3. The second or middle region of the body of an arthropod, between the head and the abdomen, in insects bearing the legs and wings.

and:

thorax
[thôr′aks] pl. thoraxes, thoraces
Etymology: Gk, chest
the upper part of the trunk or cage of bone and cartilage containing the principal organs of respiration and circulation and covering part of the abdominal organs. It is formed ventrally by the sternum and costal cartilages and dorsally by the 12 thoracic vertebrae and the dorsal parts of the 12 ribs. The thorax of women has less capacity, a shorter sternum, and more movable upper ribs than that of men. Also called chest. thoracic, adj.

Diligent study of the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ can lead to a host of questions, especially about the timing of events. One question bound to surface concerns the Roman soldier who "pierced His side with a spear" (John 19:34). Did this occur before or after His death? A simple reading through the gospel accounts would seem to answer this question conclusively. The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not mention the incident, while John addresses it after Jesus "gave up His spirit" (19:30). Where is the controversy?

The contention arises from a verse that is not even there! The King James Version leaves out the last part of Matthew 27:49, though it is present in the most ancient manuscripts: "And another took a spear, and thrust it into His side, and out came water and blood." The Moffatt and Fenton translations both include this additional material. What makes it controversial is where these words appear: just before Jesus "yielded up His spirit" (verse 50). Which is right?

They both are! The problem is in the translation of John 19:34: "But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out." The culprit is a common Greek tense called the aorist tense.

Spiros Zodhiates, in The Complete Word Study New Testament, explains:

The Aorist Tense is used for simple, undefined action. In the indicative mood, the aorist tense can indicate punctiliar action (action that happens at a specific point in time) in the past. . . . With few exceptions, whenever the aorist tense is used in any mood other than the indicative, the verb does not have any temporal significance. In other words, it refers only to the reality of an event or action, not to the time when it took place. (Emphasis ours.)

Modern translators, however, often render the aorist tense into English as simple past tense. Granted, most of the time this is correct, but in John 19:34 it is an error.

The missing portion of Matthew 27:49 supplies the timing; the soldier thrust his spear before Christ died. In John 19:34, the apostle John describes an event that had happened previously as proof that Jesus had fulfilled the prophecies of Psalm 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10. Thus, a correct translation of this verse is, "But one of the soldiers had pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water had come out."

How do we know this is correct?

1. Matthew 27:50 records that Jesus suddenly "cried out again with a loud voice" and died. The spear thrust, acting as a coup de grace, neatly accounts for His scream of pain, as well as His quick death.

2. Dead bodies do not bleed. Doctors jump through hoops trying to explain how "water and blood" could pour out of a corpse, saying that "in rare instances" such a thing is possible. However, if the spear thrust was pre-death, no such explanation is necessary.

Jesus was stabbed before He died.

Source

You're arguing over semantics.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

You're arguing over semantics.

No.... I'm done arguing. It's fruitless and pointless. You guys go ahead -- I've been condemned anyway by your lot.

No reason for you to interact with me or address my 1001 questions.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Your source seems to want to verify that Jesus didn't die due to crucifixion, but due to stabbing.

So, your source says that Jesus must have been alive at the time of the stabbing. So, when the Roman soldiers came along and broke the bones of the 2 thieves, but not Jesus', because they had determined that he was already dead, they were wrong, Jesus wasn't dead yet.

We have already been shown that Jesus wasn't hung upon the cross until the afternoon, maybe around 1pm.
The bible says that Jesus "gave up the ghost" immediately after taking the laced sponge, at 3pm, so he was only there around 2 hours.

So Jesus was still alive when the soldier "pierced his side" but he was unconscious.

So the entire argument, and in fact the whole of the Christian doctrine, rests on whether or not the soldier's deed was what actually sealed the deal.

I contend, based on all the other evidence presented in this thread, that the stabbing was not fatal, and that Jesus survived. The biggest elephant in the room being the fact that Jesus was up and about, eating and talking, and communing with his friends.

He told Mary "Touch me not." in the garden, because he was sore and hurting, but later, perhaps because of pain killer, he was able to embrace others and allow them to physically probe his wounds, ensuring them that he was real, flesh and bones, and not a spirit!

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

For a ghost, he seemed to be pretty hungry, famished in fact.

Luk 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

Luk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them

That doesn't sound dead to me!

reply to post by windword
I would think that if someone was lifted up and someone was below them it would be possible to place a spear under the ribs up to the heart .I watched a Eskimo kill a large walrus from behind where he went up to the heart kind of from behind ..