There's not much support for the swoon theory in light of biblical testimony (regarding his wounds and the following events) and what we know of crucifixion as well as various related roman/jewish practices. It doesn't seem to pass muster for a good number of reasons.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Paul said Jesus was resurrected, and that is the main thing and different Gospel writers can describe what they think happened when that fact was discovered and I don't think it is so defeating to their integrity that they don't match up. It could be there was an inclination to add some profundity to the telling that kind of goes over our heads today, not being in the same sort of cultural milieu as they were.
. . . the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.
I think it is helpful to me to know that there are little hidden messages built in and to be open to finding them. I have been reading a couple authors who have spotted those things and I seek those out (in addition to the more mainstream sort of interpreters of course).
What, you don't think Jesus completed the whole ritual and finished what he started? Don't be absurd, it's no FUN without the resurrection, and it means everything. Did he totally die DIE? I don't care, all I know in examining the whole thing is that it was meaningful and that he knew what he was doing, and that he was obediant unto death. If his resurrection was "seeded" into the minds of people like Nocodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, or even a certain Roman soldier, that they came to recognize and understanding what he was doing, made it possible, makes no difference if Jesus was himself double-blind going into the ordeal (obediant unto death), and suffer grievously he certainly did either way. I think he made it through by a mere thread, but that's just me. Nevertheless, the whole ritual as an enactment of an eternal evolutionary process of death and resurrection still functions, within the entire frame of prophecy, to a t (literally) That it was done in conjuction with the natural order also of the clockwork and the prophetic, communicative movement of the moon, the sun and the starry skies, well, let's just say it's the whole work, whether Jesus completely and utterly DIED and came back to life, or not!
Don't you see the marvel in it, in what he did, and why?
Read the passage involving the Road to Emmeus, and note how the resurrected Jesus, while still bearing physical wounds (now well on the mend), talked with his friends and explained everything to them, while employing the art of disguise, even asking for food when he was hungry, and you'll see. He made it! He went thorugh the eye of the needle, a "camel" or water bearer, across the desert of human history!
But he didn't know precisely HOW it was going to happen, until it happened, until he woke up naked, or bandaged, in that tomb, enough water to go three days, not even knowing until it happened how or who orchestrated it ie: he left it in God's hands. Mind you, upon awakening and realizing what happened, I'm sure he danced around in that tomb while praising God and shouted out, NICODEMUS! And laughing his ass off no doubt too!
And note the men in dazzling white, who the women encountered when they went to the tomb to treat the body as per custom, and what they said (no doubt there again either) with a very big smile..
When you consider the principal at the heart of it, it doesn't matter if there ARE any bones, because it's the kind of thing you just can't make any bones about!
P.S. I realize I misinterpreted precisely what you said, which was that the fact was spun in different directions, but I'm not about to edit or mess with what I just wrote so I therefore wan't to communicate this little P.S. here, so that you'll know I know we're both on the same page. Cheers, NAM
Do the research on how each apostle met his end... Don't take my word on that one.
You seem to want ATS to (and forgive me for this, because I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you) put on a debate with research and the whole business. Again, forgive me, but why bother?
You have your beliefs, that's fine. I don't think they will be changed by ATS. I'm sure if there is a point which needs clarification you can check with whichever sources you approve of.
Again, I know I sound very harsh and should probably delete this, but I'm hoping you can straighten me out and I can start again.
Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by dirkpotters
I watched that last night. Biased like his other stuff and not without it's cherry picking.
Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by wildtimes
so Jesus rolled the rock from his tomb after waking from a nap brought on by Roman crusifiction ?
Fairly certain the type of wounds one would get from such a thing would not allow someone to do that.
I mean if you want to admit to his existence, than we have to treat it forensically?
I have determined that the "holy books" are biased, and I want to know what solid historical basis there is for accepting either of them.
He argues against it being an actual historical event.
I also like to point out that he was on the cross for 3-6 hours. People survive on a cross for longer than that (up to a day or two).