It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An interesting Islamic interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion.

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 






This was dated to approx. 21CE which is the exact time of Jesus...

cojs.org...

The method used at that particular time was the stake, not a cross... which is a later addition to the original texts... the word used is "Stauros" which is a stake... Which would have also enabled him to actually carry his "cross" to his death as it is written... unlike the actual cross which would have been at almost twice as heavy... No cross beam is mentoned in the texts either..

The nails were hammered through the heel on the sides of the pole... and through the wrists of the victim which is also the only way it could have supported the weight without literally ripping through the hands once the body starts to hang.

This is the only solid evidence we have of an actual crucifixion from the time of Jesus that complies with the original texts... the rest is only speculation


edit on 13-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


OK, since you seem determined to debate a point nobody can prove, I'll play.

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. I'm sure it was still in the middle of your chest a couple thousand years ago as well. It even says that Thomas put his hands in Jesus' SIDE before he stopped doubting.

It says blood and water flowed, Hypovolemic shock from his flogging is the most likely culprit for that. 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.




The gospel eyewitness accounts of Jesus crucifixion are medically correct.


And what of the supposed "eyewitness accounts" of his ascending to Heaven? I suppose you beleive that he really just floated away on a cloud or something?

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.


edit on 13-9-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
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)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Akragon
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)


20 years ago that's how they recommended to perform CPR, now its the solar plexus (middle of your thorax).

The heart is just ever so slightly on the left side, but practically the middle of your chest. Roman soldiers would have known this well I would imagine.



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


Actually they still require you to come from the left... never the right

So the thrusts are above the heart not on the side of it...

Im required to take CPR every year...




posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Cancerwarrior
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.

You'd best go find a different anatomy class. The heart isn't in the middle.
It's on the left side.

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.

You didn't read the information I posted .. did you? I ALREADY POSTED INFORMATION ON THAT. The spear was thrust into his side. Obviously it easily could have punctured the sac, the lungs and the heart. The water and blood say that is most likely. The fact is Jesus was dead before the spear was thrust. The guard was 'making sure' that Jesus was dead. So he wasn't exactly thrusting the spear in delicately ... ya 'know. It was to insure Jesus was dead.


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.


More medical info on the post mortem wound in Jesus side
... with more links by physicians who had information on Jesus death and post mortem wound


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.

You rolling your eyes means nothing.
You haven't read the thread, have you? Try again ...

Matthew .. written by the Apostle Matthew.
Mark ... He wrote what Peter told him.
Luke .... He wrote what Mary and Paul told him
John ... written by the Apostle John

Estimated Dates
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63,
John: c. 85 to near 100

Now subtract 33 years from those because the counting started at Jesus birth.
Matthew - finished 27 years after Jesus died
Mark - finished 17 years after Jesus died
Luke - finished 26 years after Jesus died
John - finished 52 years after Jesus died.

Compare with the Qu'ran written 600+ years after Jesus died.

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.
edit on 9/13/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Some archeological information on crucified remains/crosses from Jesus time period and early Christianity in that area of the world.

It could have been just a pillar ... it could have been a T ...



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





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. The dates you give are highly speculative at the earliest times. So this argument you keep trying to make against the Koran because it is an older is text is a moot point.

And sorry, the heart is not on the left side of the chest. The right ventricles and atria (the real muscled part of the heart)are covered by your sternum. Look it up if you don't believe me. It is right between your lungs, only tilted to the left.

The theory that Jesus never really died is much more plausible than a god wizard waving a majic wand and making Jesus a walking zombie with wounds and all, but hey, whatever works.
edit on 13-9-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Cancerwarrior
So what does the long of a period of time have to do with it?

really? Time passing has nothing to do with reliability? go ask a cop investigating a crime scene which is more reliable ... information that comes from witness' ten minutes after the event ... or information that comes from gossip one year after the event.

They are still in effect, secondhand sources.

No. They are reports written by those who heard the information from witness'. The only way LUKE could have the information that he did was if he heard it directly from Mary, Jesus mother.

Many theologians are unsure of the dates of the gospels but most are about 100 years (at the earliest) after his death.

Debatable.

And sorry, the heart is not on the left side of the chest.

Left. Right. MIddle. I won't argue. (It's on the left) The fact is that the spear pierced the chest ... it was THRUST in to MAKE SURE HE WAS DEAD. This wasn't a delicate pin prick. That's where the blood and water came from ... the dead body that had sacs around the heart, as well as the lungs, with water and blood. I posted statements from doctors who said the description given in the gospels of the blood and water coming forth when the spear was thrust in was medically correct. It didn't pump out because there was no heart beat. It burst forth because of the pressure and build up of blood and water.


The theory that Jesus never really died is much more plausible ....

If you want to buy that Christ survived that intense beating and that intense scourging and that deadly crucifixion and that spear being thrust through his side so deep to the point that blood and water was spewing forth ... that he survived all that even though he had no signs of life and everyone confirmed that he was dead .... and survived all that without any medical care at all .... go right ahead. Knock yourself out.


edit on 9/13/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n
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).

That doesn't sound like the best possible place to be..? Like being between a rock and a hard place. Maybe that's the domain he entered into, crashing the gate and stealing the key..?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   


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.


Well, this is I think, is my point. You want a way to God that stands up to objective methods of analysis. I say that the way to God doesn't always make sense to us. And yes, Hindus could certainly say that, And if it turns out they do have that unique doctrine, then good for them. What's wrong with uniqueness, anyway? If a certain act or practice takes you some place, is it somehow invalidated because it's to all outward appearances relative and subjective? 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?



There are tons of reference where God Himself declares that He is One and there is none like unto Him.


And there are references to God being plural. Especially in Genesis, where He uses Elohim, which is plural.



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.


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.



"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.


The names used in Psalm 110 are Yaweh and Adonai. 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?



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Well, it's been four days since scorpion started this topic and we have yet to see him address the facts that I posted. We've seen a lot of deflection and name calling but no engaging the facts as presented. Looks like the thinly veiled attempt of this thread to discredit the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, while hyping the fiction of the Qu'ran, is a failure.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Well, it's been four days since scorpion started this topic and we have yet to see him address the facts that I posted.


I have refuted all your points, especially here, here and here
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.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Snsoc
 



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?

Well, you are right. But then that would take away the Christian claims of exclusivity. It would be just one among the many religions in existence, wouldn't it?



And there are references to God being plural. Especially in Genesis, where He uses Elohim, which is plural.
References to plurality has to do with the usage of the Hebrew language.
You might want to look up this thing called Pluralis excellentiae


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.


So "Elohim" may be plural, but the Hebrew use of the word is purely singular.

A lot of languages have that. Even in my own language, when I address a revered person or someone of authority, I use the same word that I would use for a group of people. So a direct translation of my words into English, would seem as if I was speaking to more than one person.


edit on 14-9-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Snsoc
 




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.
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.



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.
He isn't definitely making the point that "Lord" in that verse is divine. He simply asks the Pharisees a riddle

"If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

...and it simply ends there. The Pharisees are unable to answer.


Is it your contention, then, that Jesus was lying and misquoting scripture in order to spread the false Messiah=divine doctrine?

But Jesus was never spreading the Messiah = Divine connection. His own words refute that.
He was quoting David as saying "The Big Boss(God) told my boss (i.e - The Messiah)....."



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
I have refuted all your points,

No, you haven't. I posted many many facts. You THINK you refuted them .. but you didn't.

You believe Jesus being "before" Abraham makes him God.

WRONG. You said that Jesus never claimed to be God. I showed that He did indeed. Even the Jews at that time knew he was claiming to be God. 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.


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.

WRONG. For the THIRD TIME ... read the damn post correctly. I gave information from a variety of sources discussing that Melchizedek doesn't have a genealogy written down. Some of them feel he's folk lore. But not all.


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.

1 - Grow up and stop trying to insult people. It's comical admission of failure on your part to do so.
2 - I don't give a rats backend about who you want to talk to or not. This is a discussion board and you'll just have to learn to deal with educated western christian women being smarter than you.

MAN UP AND ADDRESS THE FACTS PRESENTED. STOP DEFLECTING WITH ATTEMPTED INSULTS.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
7 PAGES AND SCORPION FAILS TO ADDRESS THESE FACTS ...


Matthew .. written by the Apostle Matthew.
Mark ... He wrote what Peter told him.
Luke .... He wrote what Mary and Paul told him
John ... written by the Apostle John

Estimated Dates
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63,
John: c. 85 to near 100

Now subtract 33 years from those because the counting started at Jesus birth.
Matthew - finished 27 years after Jesus died
Mark - finished 17 years after Jesus died
Luke - finished 26 years after Jesus died
John - finished 52 years after Jesus died.

Compare with the Qu'ran written 600+ years after Jesus died.

AND YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THESE QUOTES FROM JESUS

Jesus Himself said He came down from heaven. John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"

Jews believe God alone gives life - Jesus Himself said He is life - John 11:25: Jesus said to her, "I AM the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.

More of Jesus Own words -
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
“…that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)
“…He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

Jesus Says "I am the Good Shepherd

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 .

Jesus death - via EYEWITNESS accounts

= He was DEAD. The soul leaving the body means the person is DEAD.
= The severe beating and loss of blood and SPEAR THROUGH THE HEART killed him.
= The soul being back in the body means He came back to life. Risen from the dead.

He was murdered. He died. He rose from the dead by the power of God.
Jesus claimed to be God over and over .. and His miracles proved that He indeed was.

The Islamic fiction that was made up 600+ years later had to try to take away Jesus being
God so it totally counters what the eyewitness said. The Islamic fictional story is a
convoluted mess and unreliable.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



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.
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)



I gave information from a variety of sources discussing that Melchizedek doesn't have a genealogy written down.
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.



educated western christian women
You are not a Christian.
You need to accept the entire Bible - starting from Adam - to be a Christian. You don't... so you are NOT a Christian by Biblical standards.

As for being "educated", you are clearly having difficulty comprehending the difference between being of God and being God himself.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Jesus claimed to be God over and over ... and His miracles proved that He indeed was.

I'm guessing John 5:30 is missing in your copy of the Bible.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
-John 5:30

A man who can do nothing of his own, but rather the will of God who sent him... is not God.
Again, being of God is NOT the same as being God Himself.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Acknowledge this : If Jesus was claiming he was God, then he would have said "I am your God"



Jesus often spoke indirectly-parables, hidden sayings, implications...the purpose was to invite the listener to dig deeper. People want easy answers, and Christ often refused to give them, because He knew the value of truth that is obtained at a sacrifice.

No, Jesus never uttered the words, "I am your God," but to say that this means He never wished to communicate His divinity because He didn't use those exact words is a silly semantics argument. He called Himself the I AM and was threatened with death for it, because it was blasphemy. If you believe Jesus existed, that belief comes to you from the oral and written traditions of Christianity, which also hold that He was divine. How can you trust their testimony on one point and not another?

I'm going to stick with a God that can be both Himself and of Himself, because my God is omnipotent. I'm going to stick with a God who knows that no mortal man could have led a perfect life and therefore been a perfect sacrifice for my sins, so He did it Himself. I don't know how you can find atonement under Islam, but I certainly hope you can, and I guess we'll find out who is right at the end of time. Until then, peace!




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join