Did Jesus really die?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
According to Jewish standards for measuring days, a new day starts at sunset. So if Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, then stayed dead all through Saturday, and then resurrected some time Sunday morning, that would still count as "three days" in accordance with Jewish law.

According to accepted Christian timelines, Jesus died between 2pm and 3pm on Friday. Let's say sunset was at 8pm (it doesn't really matter, though; it's the same amount of hours in total). That's six hours there. Then from 8pm Friday night to 8pm Saturday night is 24 hours. Then the Bible says he resurrected very early in the morning on Sunday and that it was still dark, right before dawn. Let's say 5am for argument's sake. That's another 9 hours.

6+24+9 equals 39 hours. He was "dead" for roughly thirty nine hours.

Has anyone considered that he didn't actually die; that maybe it was only a coma induced by hypovolemic shock from which he recovered a day and a half later?




posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

AlienBuddha
Has anyone considered that he didn't actually die;

The muslims say that all the time. In order for their faith to be valid, then Jesus couldn't die and come back to life on his own. So they say he wasn't really dead ... or some such thing.

The eyewitness accounts are that he was dead. He was flogged nearly to death, had severe loss of blood, that he was crucified, and he died. A soldier pierced his side with a roman lance to insure that he was dead. Water and blood came forth showing that, when he died, his longs and heart had water in them from the beating and crucifixion and severe loss of blood of the whipping he took. Jesus was dead. Dead, dead, dead. He was buried in that state and left to rot. There was no medical care. No one could survive that.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I think you might be on to something. I always found it odd that the son of God could/would die in the first place. The gospels were written more than 100 years after Jesus died, so maybe after the story got passed from person to person it changed?

All this thinking is going to get me into the Devil's country club. My advice to you is to put that apple down and back away slowly.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienBuddha
 





Has anyone considered that he didn't actually die; that maybe it was only a coma induced by hypovolemic shock from which he recovered a day and a half later?


Absolutely!

Besides the fact that he was, reportedly, up and and walking about, talking, touching and being touched, and the fact that he was hungry, asked for food and ate, the biggest clue, that he didn't die are his own alleged, words.


37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.


There's every reason to believe that Jesus survived his ordeal on the cross.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
There have been a number of professional articles published in academic medical journals over the years that describe in detail what scourging and crucifixion would have resulted in, and I've never seen anyone who wasn't a rabid anti-Christian, in some fashion, claim that Jesus survived it, and none of those had any evidence, whatsoever, it was always "Oh, I think he could have lived through that." (I'm sure one of them will chime in before long with a similar statement, lol.)

Here is a typical description (disclaimer: rather violent and unpleasant content) -- An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Christ

As for the "three days" thing, I've heard a variety of explanations (Jews determine days differently than we do, so from Friday at 3pm to Sunday morning there are three days and three nights; Jesus was killed before the Passover on Thursday, not before the Sabbath on Friday; etc.) but, ultimately, who cares? Either you believe that Jesus died on the cross, or not, and you don't need some apparent minor inconsistency to back up that perspective, do you?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 






Here is a typical description (disclaimer: rather violent and unpleasant content) -- An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Christ

What medical evidence?!!

Any pathologist who claims to be able to determine the cause of the death, or perform a "virtual autopsy" without a body, when, in fact, reports are available that have the patient up and about, eating and talking, then determines and publishes a cause of death, IS A QUACK!



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


It seems that some people will need many many reasons to not believe as opposed to just believing . They may say look look there is no question mark after that part or why would they not dot a I ...peace



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


If you're not going to read the text and figure out why they titled the article what they did, why bother commenting on it? It's written by two PhDs who cite numerous medical references, not by two armchair detectives, who base their conclusions on their own opinion.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

AlienBuddha
According to Jewish standards for measuring days, a new day starts at sunset. So if Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon, then stayed dead all through Saturday, and then resurrected some time Sunday morning, that would still count as "three days" in accordance with Jewish law.

According to accepted Christian timelines, Jesus died between 2pm and 3pm on Friday. Let's say sunset was at 8pm (it doesn't really matter, though; it's the same amount of hours in total). That's six hours there. Then from 8pm Friday night to 8pm Saturday night is 24 hours. Then the Bible says he resurrected very early in the morning on Sunday and that it was still dark, right before dawn. Let's say 5am for argument's sake. That's another 9 hours.

6+24+9 equals 39 hours. He was "dead" for roughly thirty nine hours.

Has anyone considered that he didn't actually die; that maybe it was only a coma induced by hypovolemic shock from which he recovered a day and a half later?


Well considering that the Roman soldier stabbed his kidney with a spear and saw He was already dead, I am going to say that yes, He was dead. And since there were no blood transfusions in those days, He did lose quite a bit, you have to remember that no only was He beaten up by soliders, He was whipped before carrying the beams for the cross. Then He was stabbed in the side by a spear. So no, unless one of the disciples had an IV bag with blood, I don't think it was possible. And He was severely dehydrated with the loss of blood.

Even the historian Tacitus says He was executed by Pontius Pilate. It was accepted by the Romans that Jesus had indeed died.

Treatment For Hypovolemic Shock


The treatment of patients with hypovolemic shock often begins at an accident scene or at home. The prehospital care team should work to prevent further injury, transport the patient to the hospital as rapidly as possible, and initiate appropriate treatment in the field. Direct pressure should be applied to external bleeding vessels to prevent further blood loss.

Prevention of further injury applies mostly to the patient with trauma. The cervical spine must be immobilized, and the patient must be extricated, if applicable, and moved to a stretcher. Splinting of fractures can minimize further neurovascular injury and blood loss.

Although in selected cases stabilization may be beneficial, rapid transport of sick patients to the hospital remains the most important aspect of prehospital care. Definitive care of the hypovolemic patient usually requires hospital, and sometimes surgical, intervention. Any delay in definitive care, eg, such as delayed transport, is potentially harmful.

Most prehospital interventions involve immobilizing the patient (if trauma is involved), securing an adequate airway, ensuring ventilation, and maximizing circulation.

In the setting of hypovolemic shock, positive-pressure ventilation may diminish venous return, diminish cardiac outcome, and worsen the shock state. While oxygenation and ventilation are necessary, excessive positive-pressure ventilation can be detrimental for a patient suffering hypovolemic shock.

Appropriate treatment usually can be initiated without delaying transport. Some procedures, such as starting intravenous (IV) lines or splinting of extremities, can be performed while a patient is being extricated. However, procedures in the field that prolong transportation should be delayed. Benefits to giving IV fluids prior to departure from the scene are not clear; however, IV lines and fluid resuscitation should be started and continued once the patient is en route to definitive care.

In recent years, there has been considerable debate regarding the use of military antishock trousers (MAST). MAST were introduced in the 1960s and, based mostly on anecdotal reports of success, their use became standard therapy in the prehospital treatment of hypovolemic shock in the late 1970s. By the 1980s, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma included their use in the standard of care for all patients with trauma and signs or symptoms of shock. Since that time, studies have failed to show improved outcome with the use of MAST. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma no longer recommends the use of MAST.


Unless they rushed Him to Cedars Sinai in the ambulance, I don't see how He could have just recovered the next morning.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by windword
 


If you're not going to read the text and figure out why they titled the article what they did, why bother commenting on it? It's written by two PhDs who cite numerous medical references, not by two armchair detectives, who base their conclusions on their own opinion.


Been there. Done that! The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

Again! Any doctor who determines a cause of the death, when there is NO BODY and there is evidence that the patient was up and about, talking and walking and EATING, is a QUACK



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Like a vid of Mohammad seeing visions and hearing voices from God ..Proof or it didnt happen ...



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienBuddha
 


To answer that question you must first answer the question did Jesus live , because if he never lived he couldn't have died .



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

windword

adjensen
reply to post by windword
 


If you're not going to read the text and figure out why they titled the article what they did, why bother commenting on it? It's written by two PhDs who cite numerous medical references, not by two armchair detectives, who base their conclusions on their own opinion.


Been there. Done that! The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

Again! Any doctor who determines a cause of the death, when there is NO BODY and there is evidence that the patient was up and about, talking and walking and EATING, is a QUACK


I can agree with half of that point. Since these medical doctors didn't have the body, then it's really hard for them to say anything. Even when they find mummies, at least there's something to work with.

And since the thread was titled with Hypovolemic shock, I don't think the OP took time to read from the medical community exactly what the treatment for it is.

The reason the disciples were gathered together in the house was for one purpose, they were Sitting Shiva

Here is what the Shabbat and holiday rules are for Sitting Shiva

There are a number of other rules that can change the amount of time that you’re supposed to sit Shiva for. If a Jewish holiday falls during the period of time you’re sitting shiva, shiva ends the afternoon before the holiday. For example, if Yom Kippur falls during the 7 days of shiva, shiva ends the afternoon just before Yom Kippur begins. Even though the holiday decreased the time spent sitting shiva, it is considered that you mourned for seven days. In the case that a person passes away during a holiday, the burial and shiva should wait until the holiday is finished. There are also some rules about when to sit shiva if someone passes away on Shabbat. In this case, the burial is done the next day and then the shiva period begins that day after the burial. If you’re already sitting shiva when Shabbat arrives, you should remove the outer signs of mourning such as covering the mirrors, wearing no makeup, sitting low, wearing torn ribbons/KaddishBands etc. This is because Shabbat overrides sitting shiva. However Shabbat does count as one of the 7 days of sitting shiva even though you’re not focusing on sitting shiva. When Shabbat is complete, that Saturday night you begin sitting shiva again. You can cover the mirrors again, etc.


It happened during Passover and just before Sabbath. That's why the women had to wait until Sabbath was over and the holiday had passed before they could clean the body. That's the purpose for them to go to the tomb when they did.

As the Bible records He was taken down immediately and put in the tomb, means they were following the Sitting Shiva tradition. He was not actually "buried", the tomb was simply borrowed, which would be the case anyway, because Shabbat and Shiva dictated that He could not have a formal burial with the service. Since there was no service indicated, He was placed there for a temporary reason, then the women waited until the Sabbath was over. This is all traditional, so they kept it like they knew to do. That's why the disciples were all together, and since Sitting Shiva is done in the family home, then they were at His mother's house. It had nothing to do with them being afraid of the Romans, they were simply keeping the tradition of Sitting Shiva.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
did jesus die? I'll put it this way - John the baptist was killed. And he remained dead. Jesus was also ''killed'', but he is still considered ''alive'' and his return is awaited. How could Jesus have truly 'died' in the true sense of the word?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


It was a physical one ...He became flesh so that He could die ..peace
But Gos raised Him from the dead and with the resurrected body He now sits at the right hand of God
edit on 8-10-2013 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



There's every reason to believe that Jesus survived his ordeal on the cross.





posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Speaking with Nicodemus, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:11–12 NIV).

The words translated “I tell you the truth” occur twenty-five times in John’s Gospel and literally mean “Amen, amen.” Other Bible versions translate this, “Verily verily” (KJV) or “Truly, truly” (ESV, NAS). It might be freely translated, “Most solemnly do I say to you.”2 Jesus had no doubt that He possessed the truth; indeed, He claimed to be the truth (John 14:6). He had been given the Spirit without limit (John 3:34) and spoke the words of God. To look upon Jesus was to look upon the Father (Hebrews 1:3) and to listen to Jesus’ words was to listen to the words of the Father. Jesus Himself testified, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father … The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father living in me, who is doing His work” (John 14:9–10). creation.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
The story says he died, so what's to argue about?

If a story says he died then there is no arguing. Just like Voldemort died in Harry Potter, there is no arguing about Voldermort's death.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by danielsil18
 



The story says he died, so what's to argue about?

If a story says he died then there is no arguing. Just like Voldemort died in Harry Potter, there is no arguing about Voldermort's death.


Voldemort didn't come back. And even if he had, no one would have worshipped the ground he walked on.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by danielsil18
 



The story says he died, so what's to argue about?

If a story says he died then there is no arguing. Just like Voldemort died in Harry Potter, there is no arguing about Voldermort's death.


Voldemort didn't come back. And even if he had, no one would have worshipped the ground he walked on.


Actually Voldemort did come back in the 5th or 6th book.

The people that wrote the bible said Jesus died and then came back. If the story says he died then we can't say he survived.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join