It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The gospel eyewitness accounts of Jesus crucifixion are medically correct.
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
the heart is located to the left side of the breast plate...not in the center
Which is why you use three fingers to the left of the breast place when performing CPR..
edit on 13-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)
The bible (John 19:32) specifically states that Jesus was pierced in his side. Last time I took anatomy, the heart is in the middle of your chest.
If you read about Hypovolemic shock, you will learn that it makes the pleural sac around the lungs filled with fluid. Just becasue this sac ruptures does NOT mean that the lungs and heart were pierced.
Then another agony begins -- a terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart. One remembers again the 22nd Psalm, the 14th verse: “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.”
It is now almost over. The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissue; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The markedly dehydrated tissues send their flood of stimuli to the brain.
Apparently, to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John reports: “And immediately there came out blood and water.” That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.
Therefore, the water probably represented serous pleural and pericardial fluid, 5-7, 11 and would have preceded the flow of blood and been smaller in volume than the blood. Perhaps in the setting of hypovolemia and impending acute heart failure, pleural and pericardial effusions may have developed and would have added to the volume of apparent water.5, 11 The blood, in contrast, may have originated from the right atrium or the right ventricle (Fig. 7) or perhaps from a hemoperieardium.5, 7, 11 ....
However, another explanation may be more likely. Jesus' death may have been hastened simply by his state of exhaustion and by the severity of the Scourging, with its resultant blood loss and preshock state.7 The fact that he could not carry his patibulum supports this interpretation. The actual cause of Jesus' death, like that of other crucified victims, may have been multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemie shock, exhaustion asphyxia, and perhaps acute heart failure2, 3, 5-7, 10, 11 A fatal cardiac arrhythmia may have accounted for the apparent catastrophic terminal event.
Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiorespiratory failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death (Fig 7). Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.
The fact is none of the gospels were written by the actual apostles. So when people talk about "eyewitness accounts" concerning the crucifixtion, I have to roll my eyes, because there are none.
THE POINT was that the Gospels were indeed written by those with first hand knowledge of the crucifixion of Jesus. Either by themselves .. or as told to the authors by eyewitness to what happened. The Qu'ran, which Scorpion is trying to push, was written 600 years later.
So what does the long of a period of time have to do with it?
They are still in effect, secondhand sources.
Many theologians are unsure of the dates of the gospels but most are about 100 years (at the earliest) after his death.
And sorry, the heart is not on the left side of the chest.
The theory that Jesus never really died is much more plausible ....
and was then raised into the Samawat (i.e., the seven strata of space and time that exist between this world and Allah’s ‘arsh).
A Hindu could just as well say that other religions aren't valid paths, because they don't have a doctrine that is unique to hinduism. It is simply not an objective method of analysis.
There are tons of reference where God Himself declares that He is One and there is none like unto Him.
Its quite cheeky of Christianity to suggest that they had the Israelites had it wrong for 2000 years and that the Christian idea of Messiah being God is correct.
"Lord" means both God, who is the Lord of all.... and it can also mean a human figure of authority... as shown in the parable of the servants.
Well, it's been four days since scorpion started this topic and we have yet to see him address the facts that I posted.
If the things of God were plain to see and completely logical, why wouldn't everyone follow them? What kind of test would that be?
References to plurality has to do with the usage of the Hebrew language.
And there are references to God being plural. Especially in Genesis, where He uses Elohim, which is plural.
A grammatical phenomenon occurs with a small number of Hebrew nouns, such as elohim "great god" and behemoth "giant beast" where a grammatically redundant plural ending -im (usually masculine plural) or -oth (usually feminine plural) is attached to a noun, but the noun nevertheless continues to take singular verbs and adjectives.
Christianity may have originally begun with the Israelites, which means they would have adhered to the Israelite definition of the Messiah as a human and God as One. If Jesus himself followed the Israelite religion and did not come to start a new religion, then that is what he taught.
It was mostly Jews who started Christianity, and they felt it was simply a continuation/perfection/fulfillment of what they already believed. So there's nothing "cheeky" about it.
He isn't definitely making the point that "Lord" in that verse is divine. He simply asks the Pharisees a riddle
While it's true that "Adonai" could refer to an earthly lord, when Jesus quotes it, he is very definitely making the point that the "Lord" in that verse is divine, and since the passage is talking about the Messiah, then Messiah=divine.
Is it your contention, then, that Jesus was lying and misquoting scripture in order to spread the false Messiah=divine doctrine?
I have refuted all your points,
You believe Jesus being "before" Abraham makes him God.
But when I pointed out Melchizedek who is without mother or father , you dismiss him as a fairy tale along with Noah, Adam and Eve. This is because you have your own homemade version of Christianity.
I'm here to discuss Christianity with proper Christians, who accept the entire Bible... not waste time on special snowflakes following bits and pieces of the Bible.
Jesus says in John 10:11-18 that he is the Good Shepherd. When you read this passage along with Ezekiel 34:1-16, you can see that Jesus was identifying Himself with God, who pronounced Himself Shepherd over Israel .
Acknowledge this : If Jesus was claiming he was God, then he would have said "I am your God"... instead of acknowledging that he was honored by the One the Jews called God. (John 8:54)
They said so and tried to kill Him for it. So no ... you failed to acknowledge your error ... Jesus did indeed claim to be God.
The only source I am interested in here is the Bible, that I'm using as a yardstick. But you don't even accept most of the Bible. Your opinions are as valid as an atheists who rejects all of the Bible.
I gave information from a variety of sources discussing that Melchizedek doesn't have a genealogy written down.
You are not a Christian.
educated western christian women
Jesus claimed to be God over and over ... and His miracles proved that He indeed was.
Acknowledge this : If Jesus was claiming he was God, then he would have said "I am your God"