Survival of the Crucifixion: Traditions of Jesus

INTRODUCTION
The empty tomb on Easter morning and subsequent appearances of Jesus to his disciples and to a few others have provided some novelists, or writer-scholars, with incentive to explore the possibility of his survival of the crucifixion.1 This incentive has been furthered by the lack of documented examples of resurrection other than that supposed for Jesus first by Paul and then by the early Christian church. Unknown to many, however, is that various independent scholars have also postulated that Jesus survived the crucifixion for the same reasons. Also not well known is how widespread and credible the traditions are that point to Jesus, after surviving the crucifixion, having traveled with a few others through Anatolia and thence eastward to northern India and the Kashmir region. Here these topics will be summarized and consolidated so that open-minded, questioning Christians can better explore the roots of their faith and understand how thoroughly Christian authorities over the centuries have ignored, suppressed and belittled the unthinkable evidence that could overturn their faith.

www.alienshift.com...

the evidence for the case of survival of the crucifixion:

his legs where not broken during crucifixion and therefore, it is possible to remain alive (your lungs do not collapse untill your legs give in)


the evidence against the case of survival of the crucifixion:

his side was pierced with a spear while he was still on the cross (you cannot survive from that without modern medecine)


my conclusion is that he could not have survived such a wound even if he did survive the crucifixion.

there are several references in different writings to Jesus not being crucified
at all but watching the crucifiction of a substitute in most cases Simon the Cyrene. one that comes to mind is in the Koran.

as for the wound in the side, as far as i know nothing is ever said to indicate the
exact location of the wound. as we know from head wounds minor wounds
can produce alot of blood while doing little actual damage. another question
that comes up is, as i recall after death the blood drains to the lowest point,
in this case the feet and legs. flowing blood would indicate that the heart is still
working right?

[edit on 27-10-2004 by stalkingwolf]

Wheather he died or not is not important. The phrase 'He died for our sins' has been twisted so we can still sin and just ask forgiveness. If he died, he died because of mans sins. Where does Jesus say his blood will wash away our sins. He tells us to go and sin no more.

I wonder if Paul was legitimate - he may have been misleading Christians. Remember who he was before Paul.

Christians today even pray to Jesus, and this is against what God said - 'put no other gods before me'. Christians also put Jesus as God in a trinity. However, Jesus said he was not God and he prayed to his Father, God, not to himself. He even said the God had forsaken him. He is at the right hand of God, not in God.

Wheather he died or not, he did suffer for (or because of) our sins. Christians miss the purpose of Christ - his message. He didn't come to change the law, but to fulfill it. He came to clarify what we should do, and still so many miss it. Man has messed with the bible too much for us to know what really happened, but it is what Jesus said that should be our focus.

Read your bible my friend; John 6, Jesus says clearly, 'unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.' this offended many because that statement told them that He was the only sacrifice for their sins.

Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...He also said, 'I and the Father are One.' Our problem is we try to approach the Word with logic and common sense alone, this will never work - it must be approached with Faith.