No mentioning Jesus death in Nicene Creed

I provided the chapters in both Isaiah and psalms, you indeed missed it.

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: raymundoko
I provided the chapters in both Isaiah and psalms, you indeed missed it.

a reply to: windword

NO YOU HAVEN'T

Look, if you can't provide a prophecy of a dying and resurrected Messiah, just say so. I already know that one doesn't exist in the Old Testament. But don't pee on my leg and say it's raining! You have NOT provided a verse or a chapter, let alone the exact citation of such a prophecy.

a reply to: raymundoko

What is modern about a knife in the chest? The procedure could easily be done in the field, with a pointy object of some sort. Knife, spearhead, dagger, you don't really need the machine that goes *beep*.

a reply to: raymundoko

I think he managed to read that you referred to Isaiah and Psalms, he wants you to be more specific. Simply copy and paste the verses, there are plenty online Bibles.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: raymundoko
I provided the chapters in both Isaiah and psalms, you indeed missed it.

a reply to: windword

NO YOU HAVEN'T

Well he did say

raymundoko:

Isaiah [...] Ch 7, 50, 53

The psalms [...] Ch 16, 22

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Thanks. I searched his posts twice for the reference. I can see that it was edited in, later, but even going back, I did miss his feckless effort.

HOWEVER, There is nothing in Psalms 16 or 22, nor in Isaiah 7, 50 or 53 that prophecises a dying and resurrected Messiah. Throwing around chapters, hoping something will stick, isn't going to cut it!

The Jews had no expectation of a dying and and resurrecting Messiah, they were looking for a military leader, like the scriptures prophecised. Even William Lane Craig, whose rhetoric I loath, has to concede that there isn't a clear prophecy of the death and resurrections of Jesus.

The older view that sees the origin of the disciples’ belief in their searching the Scriptures in the aftermath of Jesus’ crucifixion and finding the idea of a dying and rising Messiah there, which they then (sincerely) applied to Jesus, has now been widely abandoned in New Testament scholarship.......

The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2 — “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him”—has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul. But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In the apostolic sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted in terms of Jesus’ resurrection: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” But if we look at the principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, we find the story of Jonah and the whale. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12.40).

Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.

Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...

Twice and you missed that? And I'm supposed to take your research seriously? I told you I edited in the information immediately. I can't really put any stock in the opinion of someone so lazy in effort.

a reply to: windword

If you seriously think you had the equivalent of first century medical care then I don't know what to say...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: raymundoko

Wow! Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds! You have presented no evidence of a prophecy of a dying and resurrected Messiah!
Look, you don't know what you're talking about, that's obvious. You're just parroting rhetoric that you know nothing about.

As for my source:

William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University.

Read more: www.reasonablefaith.org...

Ignore at the risk of further exposing of your own ignorance.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Thanks. I searched his posts twice for the reference. I can see that it was edited in, later, but even going back, I did miss his feckless effort.

I didn't want to ruin your fun Well, carry on then....

The typical reference they give is the story from Isaiah 53 but that chapter is hardly about Jesus. His well known diseases seem to have been covered up perfectly for instance. To the extent they aren't mentioned at all, in fact, the character of Isaiah 53 dies from these diseases. Must have been some kind of breath-virus that attacks people who are victims of human carpentry.

a reply to: raymundoko

Oh dear, logic thinking isn't really your thing eh? In order to heal someone from a punctured lung, you need A: a sharp instrument and B: knowing how to count to four and C: a valve, like say, a wet sponge. They were pretty much able to do this back then, and the story describes it pretty straight forward, and everything needed to do it was present, even central in the narrative. And seeing how punctured lung was the most common potentially deadly injury in the battlefield, it's likely these soldiers were familiar with the procedure. Left untreated, you'll die. Punch the spear in just at the right place and you're back on your feet in a few hours, free to walk in three days. Period.

Call me whatever names you will, but you, my friend, is these stupids ones. Always. Period.

You are the one lacking logic and are too dense to see it.

You had antibiotics (if you say you didn't then you concocted the entire story). You should check on when that procedure was invented.

I'm wondering if you can even name the procedure...

a punctured lung was NOT the most common cause of death on the battle field, did you completely make that up???

He had fluid and blood in his chest cavity, do you know what causes that?

On top of that he had been severely tortured.

You are using anti logic to support your idea.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: raymundoko
You are the one lacking logic and are too dense to see it.

Logic tells me you're a troll...

You had antibiotics (if you say you didn't then you concocted the entire story).

Yes, of course modern antibiotics helps, but they had ethanol (evidence of 1st century stills) and quite a few very impressive natural antibiotics back in the days also. Salt would probably do the trick. There were plenty methods before modern medicine came with it's empirical demands. Nature has its arsenal of many such remedies, like the vast amounts of aloë rushed to the tomb. Aloë is quite effective in treating wounds. It would be useless in burying a king or anyone else for that matter, the idiom used in the text is a humorous remark. Kings were fat, to bury one in aloës would take lots of it.

You should check on when that procedure was invented.

Well, I have, there was not a surgical procedure in modern medicine until a few centuries ago. Simply because until then doctors left surgery to the soldiers, to the barbers, to the butchers. Are you saying that Roman legionaries and soldiers were completely unskilled in treating common injuries in the battlefield? What? Because modern medicine didn't like to get their hands dirty.

Do a check for when modern medicine accepted surgery as a branch of medicine. People who did surgery before a few hundred years ago couldn't read or write, but they were good at cutting and they understood human anatomy quite well.

I'm wondering if you can even name the procedure...

Serious?

a punctured lung was NOT the most common cause of death on the battle field, did you completely make that up???

It was not the common cause of death because they knew how to treat it. Punctured or otherwise ruptured lungs were among the most common potentially deadly injuries you could suffer. Like I said, it's fairly simple to treat. Like I said, you will need the knowledge of counting to four. Veeeery difficult for some actually.

He had fluid and blood in his chest cavity, do you know what causes that?

Yes. It's called hemothorax. I've had plenty of it. Like I said I have been through the ordeal. Blood comes from the wound in the lung itself. Water is condensed water from the air in the lungs, our bodies rid ourselves of quite an impressing amount of water through our breath alone. Think of our lungs as two balloons inside each other. The outer balloon is stretched out and the inner ballon is filled with air from the outside by the abdomen stretches it downwards and the chest is lifted, and the other way around when the abdomen contracts. Now, pierce a hole in the inner balloon, and see what happens to the outer balloon. There are no muscles in your lungs sucking in and blowing out air.

On top of that he had been severely tortured.

And seeing how he acted before Pilate and how the strong man was unable to carry his cross, it is likely the torture had left him with pneumothorax, a ruptured lung. Left untreated you will have trouble of breathing. Of speaking. Of carrying heavy loads. And eventually you will cease breathing, or «give up your spirit/breath». At this point the patient will become unconscious and appear dead, but he will not die for quite some time yet. However if the chest is pierced in time and the chest is drained for blood and water (hemothorax) and some sort of valve is placed over the wound, the patient will soon regain his consciousness and in a day or two will be able to walk and talk quite well.

You are using anti logic to support your idea.

No I am using personal experience to explain something which is really quite straightforward. Jesus survived crucifixion because a soldier pierced his chest. Maybe it was luck, I don't care, what the text says is the exact same procedure as I went through, only under different circumstances and 2000 years apart.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You are completely making stuff up now...

You can't just puncture the lung and win. As you stated a tube is needed to direct fluid and airflow. Jesus was stabbed and then left hanging for a further period of time (many hours). No surgery was done on him.

The common soldier did not perform medical procedures during the first century as emporer Trajan implemented military doctors who could perform minor surgeries, mainly amputations, arrow/shrapnel removal etc. Due to how few survived Galen implemented legit physicians trained to do complicated surgeries around 120ad.

Most deaths after minor surgery were due to infection. Recovery time for what we consider trivial procedures could be days or weeks.

a reply to: raymundoko

The tube is a modern invention that makes it simpler and better, that's what technology is for. The tube is to get the blood and water out, the soldiers evidently managed to do that without the tube. You would typically place the patient on his side from time to time and make some kind of arrangement and routine. It's typically treated with a simple catheter in the field these days.

And no, I am not making this up. Surgery wasn't accepted as decent for quite a while in Europe, it was seen as vulgar and left for butchers and barbers. When Leonardo and other artists and scientists started examining the human body by dissecting corpses in the latter part of the Middle Ages, it was looked upon by the medicine- and general scientific establishment as unheard of. As far as medicine was concerned Hippocrates (whom we have inherited the oath of modern medicine from) described a person's wellbeing or lack thereof by the balance of the four temperaments, four body-fluids. They could bleed patients, but that would be about as far as they'd go surgically, and typically they would pay a barber to do it, and this was the rule for over 1000 years in Europe.

Julius Caesar was delivered by Caesarian section, that's quite advanced surgery, and Roman surgeons had plenty test subjects in the circus and were quite skilled at wrapping up injured gladiators. The ancient Greeks drained pneumonia patients' lungs not too different from draining the sack around the lungs. In ancient Egypt they performed trepanation, re-setting broken bones, cleansing and closing wounds, amputations.

I found this one here ==> www.domusrimini.com... and here: news.bbc.co.uk... ==> a military surgeon's house from the time around Jesus. They found more than 150 surgical instruments in his house (2nd century).

Here's a few pics of the tools found:





ETA: And here you can read about ancient roman medicine ==> en.wikipedia.org... (sub-section Surgical instruments).

You just proved my point...military physician, not common soldier. And no surgery was performed on Jesus after he was punctured. He wasn't rolled or anything. He was left hanging there for several more hours.


a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: raymundoko

You don't understand this do you? Jesus' lung most likely collapsed while being beaten in front of the Sanhedrin. This is why he lasted for a mere two-three hours on the cross, when it was commonplace they would hang for days and days. Pilate had a hard time believing Jesus was dead so soon. Jesus finally stops breathing after about three hours on the cross, upon which the Centurion exclaims how Jesus was innocent and straight away has his chest pierced by a soldier's lance, and blood and water (hemothorax) gushes out, a clear sign Jesus had suffered pneumothorax. That's the surgical procedure right there. Doesn't matter whether the spearman was a doctor or not. The text describes the procedure being done, much the same way it is done today— and it worked! Jesus survived thanks to the soldier who stuck his lance into Jesus' chest.

Only it didn't work and Jesus was left on the cross for several more hours after he was pierced. Then he was taken down, wrapped in cloth and buried in a tomb...

You are the one who doesn't understand that the bible does not support your hypothesis. If you want to support your hypothesis you can't use the bible and you must use apocryphal books to make your case.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

a reply to: raymundoko

Bollocks. Jesus was taken down pretty much straight after he stopped breathing and the centurion expressed how Jesus was a son of the gods i.e. that he was innocent— and had his chest pierced (which enabled Jesus to breathe again) sometime between 3 and 6 o'clock (evening is at 3, i.e. evening as in even tide, 3 o'clock), and taken down before sunset at 6. You are lying when you say he was left hanging for hours after he gave up his breath. You can make a kid run the distance from Golgotha to Pilate's quarters in less than five minutes.

Don't you see how many baseless assumptions you stack on top of each other to support your theory?

And did I read it right? You think he was taken down before sundown?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim