The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

reply to post by wildtimes

that doesn't mean he didn't have a change of heart (change of faith)!

Go re-read the account. The centurion said that after the spear was thrust in His side, after the earthquake, after the darkness that fell upon the land, and after witnessing the veil in the temple being torn from top to bottom. After witnessing all these "signs from God" the centurion said this.

That's why Pilate was scared of Jesus, Roman and Greek mythology had numerous stories of god-men. They already had the belief that there were demi-gods.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Yeah, Josephus was the man's Roman name, it was actually "Titus", Josephus was his surname.

Although he uses "Josephus", he appears to have taken the Roman praenomen Titus and nomen Flavius from his patrons. This was standard practice for "new" Roman citizens.

en.wikipedia.org...
Praenomen seems to be the equivalent of a given name, usually for personal use within a circle of friends and family, in Roman practice.
Joseph would have been his ordinary Jewish name. Flavius was the family of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, the Flavians. Josephus was adopted into the Flavian family when he went with Titus in his return to Rome after his victory over the Judean rebels.
Below, Titus as Son of God.

clickable thumbnail. Detail from reproduction of painting by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by jmdewey60


You're not saying anything people don't already know. His Hebrew name was Joseph, his Roman name was Titus. Everyone commonly calls him Josephus for short. But where you erred was thinking he could possibly have been Joseph of Arimathea. Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD, some 4 1/2 to 5 years after the death of Christ and he died in 100 AD.

Isn't it called Malpractice for any doctor to offer a diagnosis without doing a personal examination of the person. Such would show up burns from whiping that set up lymph fluid in the skin.

Isn't it rather amazing that a thread titled "Medical Perspecive" leaves off the very orgin of medicine and the healing arts of Hippocrates that existed in Greece 500 years before Jesus? Not only where these healing methods known by the Greeks, but also by the Egyptians, the Therapute, and the Essene. And espeically known by Jesus.

Myrrh and Frankensense were of the same species of tree, and their values for healing wounds made their value greater than gold.

www.woundsresearch.com...

The use of myrrh as a wound salve is mentioned in the Smith and Embers papyri from Egyptian writings of 2500 BC. In 1370 BC, Pharoah Amenophis IV, husband of Nefertiti, received a request from Milkili, one of his military lieutenants serving in Palestine saying, “And let the King, my Lord, send troops to his servants, and let the King, my Lord, send myrrh for medicine.”1 It was said that he refused to fight until the physicians with his troops had enough supply of myrrh to treat all the wounds that would be suffered in the battle. In the first century AD, Celsus recommended a lotion of wine and myrrh for treatment of burns.2

Myrrh is also effect against Leprocy, and played a role in why Lazarus would not have fallen into sleep if Jesus was around, and the need for Jesus to return to heal his friend Lazarus using this special brown powder that looks like cinnamon, but does major medicine for skin problems.

This special healing medicine played the role of saving both Lazarus and Jesus.

Such lack of intelligent diagnosis stems from those that insist upon functional illiteracy or attempting to say all knowledge is in one book.

How is it that the very origin of medicine from Hippocrates facination with Myrrh, that actually started modern medicine, is so missing from this vapid attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes and keeping them blind to the truth?


Intelligent people don't insist on poking their heads in the sand. Yet others insist on not reading the obvious things of history and application of those greater learning issues to reading the Bible Narratives in the correct contexts.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The centurion said that after the spear was thrust in His side, after the earthquake, after the darkness that fell upon the land, and after witnessing the veil in the temple being torn from top to bottom. After witnessing all these "signs from God" the centurion said this.

So freaking what!!??
He STILL did not break the man's legs...and what they did or did not do to him is the entire "medical perspective" that your OP wants to discuss...!

But I see you prefer to not address the fact that the centurion had already shown mercy to Jesus and his mourners...and would rather go off-topic yourself. I asked you where you got your notion of all the torments you tout...they are not in the Bible, and no dusty reference to Roman protocol can gloss that over. None!!

Enjoy your rut. You haven't offered me one iota of knowledge, just your pride and egotistical self-righteousness. Again.
Uggh.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Such lack of intelligent diagnosis stems from those that insist upon functional illiteracy or attempting to say all knowledge is in one book.

How is it that the very origin of medicine from Hippocrates facination with Myrrh, that actually started modern medicine, is so missing from this vapid attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes and keeping them blind to the truth?


Intelligent people don't insist on poking their heads in the sand. Yet others insist on not reading the obvious things of history and application of those greater learning issues to reading the Bible Narratives in the correct contexts.

Thank you for saying with civility what I was thinking.....(although with less civility)...

It is RIDICULOUS, an entire farce of an OP.

reply to post by wildtimes

So freaking what!!??

What do you mean "so what!!??" The point of what I said was the centurion didn't make that proclamation until after Christ died, and after the crazy acts of God that accompanied it (earthquake, darkness over all the land, and the veil in the temple tearing in two from top to the bottom). You included it to try and insinuate he was sympathetic to Christ and didn't kill him. And apparently they all bribed the Jewish authorities in the audience who demanded His death, and bribed everyone else so that Pilate wouldn't order their execution for treason against Ceaser for refusing his decree for execution.

You have 1,001 what if's, but maybe's, and could have possibly's instead of just admitting, "Okay, the dude died on a cross." You're the one that needs to stop getting hissy Wild, it's your cognitive dissonance issue to deal with, not mine. I understand your issue, but it's still your issue to deal with.

Remember this.. people were never full of rage when they accepted the world was a sphere, they were full of rage when they learned it was not flat.

But I see you prefer to not address the fact that the centurion had already shown mercy to Jesus and his mourners...

What "mercy"? He supervised His nailing to a Roman cross. the exclamations you linked and quoted were all decelerations after Christ's death and all the signs they witnessed from God. You've got the order of events completely backwards.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You're not saying anything people don't already know.

You didn't, and had it backwards.

But where you erred was thinking he could possibly have been Joseph of Arimathea. Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD, some 4 1/2 to 5 years after the death of Christ and he died in 100 AD.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counseller, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

Here you have the role of counseller to the Roman official, which Josephus filled as being that same thing to Titus.
Atwill's thesis is that the Gospels were written by Josephus with the characters in the stories being people involved in Titus' campaign in Galilee and Judea. So, the idea is that Josephus took his own experience and injected it into the Jesus story.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You didn't, and had it backwards.

No, you needed Wikipedia and a book you just bought to realize his name was Roman name, anyone who has taken a NT Survey class will tell you the man's last name was Josephus.


Pliny Titus friend was writing to him telling him about the Christians he was persecuting. Who were these "Christians" he was persecuting who were singing hymns to Christ as if some God, if He was an invention at the time of Titus?

Silliness dude, quit reading books from nutjobs who fail the historical facts in absurd manners. Titus Josephus was born in 37 AD, Jesus died in 32 AD. He wasn't even born yet when Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus for burial.

Jesus' brother James was beheaded in 54 AD. The young Josephus by then would have been a 16-17 year old boy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What do you mean "so what!!??" The point of what I said was the centurion didn't make that proclamation until after Christ died, and after the crazy acts of God that accompanied it (earthquake, darkness over all the land, and the veil in the temple tearing in two from top to the bottom). You included it to try and insinuate he was sympathetic to Christ and didn't kill him. And apparently they all bribed the Jewish authorities in the audience who demanded His death, and bribed everyone else so that Pilate wouldn't order their execution for treason against Ceaser for refusing his decree for execution.

He WAS sympathetic, and he did NOT break the man's legs. I'm challenging you to use your Bible -- your "inerrant, self-interpreting, absolute Truth" -- to support your ludicrous depiction of the actual event.
Nor was there a spear thrust through his heart, NOWHERE does it say that except in your narrow mind. NOWHERE does it say he was flogged with a barbed flagellum, either...
your version of his crucifixion is so outrageously exaggerated that it's preposterous. And you did it again, just in this last nasty retort -- sidestepped the issue of your "Medical Perspective" being skewed and backed up by nothing except an imagined scale of brutality -- and attacked me personally instead!!

The harder you try to throw me off with your superiority, the more lame your attempt is. You have not supported your thesis at all.
I will not say "he died as a result of the crucifixion" until it is proven to me to be true. You can't do that, or even remain civil.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What do you mean "so what!!??" The point of what I said was the centurion didn't make that proclamation until after Christ died, and after the crazy acts of God that accompanied it (earthquake, darkness over all the land, and the veil in the temple tearing in two from top to the bottom). You included it to try and insinuate he was sympathetic to Christ and didn't kill him. And apparently they all bribed the Jewish authorities in the audience who demanded His death, and bribed everyone else so that Pilate wouldn't order their execution for treason against Ceaser for refusing his decree for execution.

There is no evidence that Tiberius Caesar even knew that a person named Jesus existed, let alone order his death. Jesus' death was demanded by his enemies, and leveraged by using the name of Caesar.

John 19:15 - But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

John 19:12 - And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

You have 1,001 what if's, but maybe's, and could have possibly's instead of just admitting, "Okay, the dude died on a cross." You're the one that needs to stop getting hissy Wild, it's your cognitive dissonance issue to deal with, not mine. I understand your issue, but it's still your issue to deal with.

There are 1001 reasons to believe that Jesus survived the cross. What would it do to your belief system if it was proven to be true?

According to John, Jesus from the cross complains of thirst. In reply, he is given a sponge allegedly soaked in vinegar. Rather than another act of cruelty, vinegar -- or soured wine -- is a temporary stimulant with the effects similar to smelling salts. As such, it was often used to resuscitate flagging slaves on galleys. For a wounded and exhausted man a sniff or taste of vinegar produces a restorative effect, a momentary surge of energy. And yet in Jesus' case, his reaction is to utter his last words and "give up the ghost", all of which is physiologically inexplicable.

On the other hand, his reaction would have been entirely consistent with a sponge soaked in something other than vinegar, such as belladonna or a soporific drug. Such drugs were common in the Middle East at the time, and would have constituted a stratagem designed to produce a semblance of death, and in the process save Jesus' life.

If Jesus had been drugged, which was common place at Roman crucifixions, the audience may very well have believed he died, rather than passed out.

"Show's over folks, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here!"
Enter Joseph and Nicodemus........

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

He WAS sympathetic, and he did NOT break the man's legs.

This has been addressed 3 times now. He didn't break Christ's legs because he had already been dead for over an 2 hours. The leg breaking was done to hasten death. No need to hasten death for a dead man. That's utterly absurd. And He was only "sympathetic" AFTER witnessing the acts of God (Earthquake, darkness over the land, and the veil in the temple tearing in two from top to bottom) already mentioned:

50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Jesus died.

51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

(Signs from God that everyone saw. From Calvary looking directly east you could see right into the open doors of the temple.)

54Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

(Centurion and those with him after seeing the events made the decelerations about Him being the Son of God)

Matthew 27:50-54

I'm challenging you to use your Bible -- your "inerrant, self-interpreting, absolute Truth" -- to support your ludicrous depiction of the actual event.

See above, I suggested yesterday that you re-read that story, this was for a reason, you had the order of events backwards. The centurion made those statements after Christ died and he witnessed the signs from God.

Nor was there a spear thrust through his heart, NOWHERE does it say that except in your narrow mind.

Christ died at the "ninth hour of the day" (chapter 27, verse 54) which according to Jewish reckoning would have been 3 pm. Then Joseph went to Pilate to inquire about the body it was when "even was come" (chapter 27, verse 57, Mark 15:42) which would have roughly been 6 pm, 3 HOURS LATER...

Pilate gave him permission and ordered the legs broke of the other two men by request of the Jews for the day of preparation was beginning at sundown (John 19:31-34):

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

The Jews got the authority from Pilate to hasten the death and remove the bodies from the crosses.

32Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

"With a spear pierced His side"

The medical doctors all confirm this blood and water that escaped from the wound showed that the pericardial sac was pierced and the water shows a pleural effusion. The spear went through His lung and through the sac protecting His heart.

A pathologist with over 15,000 autopsies affirms this in his AMA report on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And the MD in the video in my OP also confirms this medical opinion.

NOWHERE does it say he was flogged with a barbed flagellum, either...

Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged (G#5417) Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified.

Matthew 27:26

The Greek word for "scourged" above is "phragelloō" which is "flagellum" in the English, "Flagrum" in the Latin:

The typical scourge (Latin: flagrum; English: flagellum) has several thongs fastened to a handle; c.f. Scottish tawse (usually two or three leather thongs without a separate handle); cat o' nine tails: naval thick-rope knotted-end scourge, the army and civil prison versions usually are leather...

Scourge.

(The rest to continue, out of characters..)

reply to post by wildtimes

your version of his crucifixion is so outrageously exaggerated that it's preposterous.

It's Biblically supported, as well as a matter of Roman record for their procedures and protocols outside of the Bible accounts. You don't even need to crack open a Bible to see their protocols and laws governing executions.

And you did it again, just in this last nasty retort -- sidestepped the issue of your "Medical Perspective" being skewed and backed up by nothing except an imagined scale of brutality -- and attacked me personally instead!!

I attacked you? I don't think so, and I'm not a doctor, I don't have a medical opinion. that's why I let the Pathologists give you the medical opinions.

The harder you try to throw me off with your superiority, the more lame your attempt is.

You don't have to reply. That's your choice. But you can't claim Biblical support for something that's 180 degrees opposite from what the Bible says in print. I will challenge that.

You have not supported your thesis at all.

I have ad nauseaum in numerous threads.

I will not say "he died as a result of the crucifixion" until it is proven to me to be true.

I have no idea what else you need to hear, Pathologists and eye-witnesses apparently are ill-qualified to make the call.

You can't do that, or even remain civil.

Report me if you feel that way for violating the "Manners and Decorum" terms and Conditions of the website. That's pretty hypocritical coming from someone who in this very thread challenged my "knowledge" and "credibility" because I read a post hastily while watching something on TV, and I even clarified my error in a follow-up post to that member.

reply to post by windword

There is no evidence that Tiberius Caesar even knew that a person named Jesus existed, let alone order his death. Jesus' death was demanded by his enemies, and leveraged by using the name of Caesar.

Because the Roman procurator of Judea Pontius Pilate ordered the execution. It was his call to make, he didn't need to consult Ceaser. Only Roman citizens could request a hearing before Ceaser, not Jews. (Think Paul)

If Jesus had been drugged, which was common place at Roman crucifixions, the audience may very well have believed he died, rather than passed out.

Let's say He did pass out, He could not exhale a breath slumped in the down position. That's how people suffocated on the cross, not being able to extend on the foot nails to exhale and grab another breath of air. And secondly, when the gall was offered to Jesus He tasted it and spit it out. He wanted His mental facilities intact. (Think William Wallace from the Braveheart movie)

They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

Matthew 27:34

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Pilate gave him permission and ordered the legs broke of the other two men by request of the Jews for the day of preparation was beginning at sundown (John 19:31-34):

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

It doesn't say Pilot order his legs to be broken, only that they asked. His legs weren't broken.

Your entire argument is based around his scourging, but the bible only mentions this "scourging" as a brief afterthought, like, "oh yeah, and after that, he scourged him...." There is nothing else mentioned about the injuries that resulted from this scourge. One must assume that these injuries weren't worth mentioning, since they weren't.

You'd think that the stripes on his back would be noticed and recorded. The shock of seeing someone being taken through the streets with his guts hanging out, surely, would have been documented.

It's more likely that Pilot actually enjoyed Jesus company and they had dinner and chatted over philosophy instead, and then called it a scourging.

I have to assume that these thing that you insist happened, indeed didn't.

reply to post by windword

It doesn't say Pilot order his legs to be broken, only that they asked. His legs weren't broken.

I know His legs weren't broken, He was already dead. The legs were broken on the two theives.

And you need to read John chapter 19:

31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

32Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.

33But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I was mocking the idea that someone on the verge of death from hypovolemic shock could be miraculously healed by Myrrh.

If Jesus was removed from the cross in time and his life threatening wound was taken care of quickly, then I suspect he could have lived through his cruxifiction. If I remember correctly, Jesus was stabbed on his right sight, but to what angle I can't be certain. The spleen is on your left side, so if the spear entered his thoracic cavity at the right angle, it could have punctured it, causing severe blood loss. The Bible doesn't say exactly how deep and far the spear went, so for someone to claim it breached his pericardium is far-fetched to the extreme. Not to mention his death would have been quick, which it wasn't.

reply to post by windword

There is nothing else mentioned about the injuries that resulted from this scourge. One must assume that these injuries weren't worth mentioning, since they weren't.

That's a hasty assumption, use a little context. The accounts were written by people in the Roman Empire who knew full well what a Roman scourging entailed, no descriptions were needed. They knew what happened when a person was scourged by the praetorian guard in the common hall.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I was mocking the idea that someone on the verge of death from hypovolemic shock could be miraculously healed by Myrrh.

If Jesus was removed from the cross in time and his life threatening wound was taken care of quickly, then I suspect he could have lived through his cruxifiction. If I remember correctly, Jesus was stabbed on his right sight, but to what angle I can't be certain. The spleen is on your left side, so if the spear entered his thoracic cavity at the right angle, it could have punctured it, causing severe blood loss. The Bible doesn't say exactly how deep and far the spear went, so for someone to claim it breached his pericardium is far-fetched to the extreme. Not to mention his death would have been quick, which it wasn't.

"Far-fetched to the extreme" is challenging the medical opinion of a world-renowned double doctorate Pathologist with over 15,000 autopsies under his belt, in case you are unaware.

And how did they make up for the blood loss? You're in the medical field, you know what hypovolemic shock is. Finally, the spear in the side was just standard Roman protocol for removal of a corpse for burial. Generally corpses were to remain on the cross to decompose in the elements. That's why the Jews went to Pilate to get the okay to have the legs broken and to remove the bodies before Passover which would have begun at sundown.

if jesus was removed from the cross in time

Would 3 hours of hanging motionless in the down position be "in time"? How long can you hold your breath? I can for 2 minutes tops.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Far-fetched to the extreme" is challenging the medical opinion of a world-renowned double doctorate Pathologist with over 15,000 autopsies under his belt, in case you are unaware.

Appeal to authority. I say it's far fetched because even he doesn't know where the spear penetrated, except for his side. There can be a number of places in that area you can pierce that can cause sever blood loss. I just gave you one example.

And how did they make up for the blood loss? You're in the medical field, you know what hypovolemic shock is.

I also know hypovolemic shock isn't restricted to just blood loss. He would have needed a blood transfusion to replace all the blood he lost; assuming he lost copious amounts. Otherwise, rehydrating him would be sufficient.

Would 3 hours of hanging motionless in the down position be "in time"? How long can you hold your breath? I can for 2 minutes tops.

Every situation is different. I experienced hypovolemic shock a few weeks ago. It was painful, but I managed for 48 hours. Then again, I wasn't nailed to a cross. There are tons of variables to be considered and hardly any are given in the description of Jesus' cruxifiction. Unless you can provide them.