the author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

The heart stabbing isn't a "theory", it was Roman protocol for letting a body be taken down from a cross to give to family. Two sources from antiquity confirm this, most notably Origen. Joseph of Aramathea wanted the body, so the spear was thrust first before they took Christ's body down to give to him. It wasn't like some afterthought by a guard.

That is beside the point... theres no garentee he hit his heart in one shot...

And i believe an autopsy would have been illegal to prove that point anyways...

The heart is only the size of your fist... Now him thrusting upwards... and through a set of ribs, through his lung and into his heart would have been a longshot...

IF his heart was actually hit, there would have been no chance of survival... but if it wasn't, he could have survived... Its medically possible... Of course im not a doctor... but a lung puncture, and a scourging combined with the crucifiction would have been survivable... in my humble opinion.

reply to post by Akragon

Of course im not a doctor... but a lung puncture, and a scourging combined with the crucifiction would have been survivable... in my humble opinion.

You're crazy. The lung piercing was only done because Jesus was long dead and the family requested the body. That was the Roman protocol in a situation like that.

reply to post by wildtimes

the "details" as given in the Bible are very much possibly "altered" to suit the proponents' agenda

What "agenda" was that? To live the rest of their days under constant persecution and then martyrdom for a lie that left them penniless?? Makes complete sense.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You're crazy.

AM NOT!!

Mad maybe... Please refer to the signature...

Protocol or not, he could have survived if his heart wasn't hit...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, do you think the family took Him down from the cross and laid Him in the dirt? Would you do that with your loved one? No, they took Him down and laid him in the cloth, and wrapped Him right there at the foot of the cross.

When did I ever say that?

The blood on the shroud, if it's real mind you, would be the blood that was still wet on Him at the time he was laid in the cloth. I think they said some from the chest cavity was still seeping a bit but that would happen.

"That would happen" ...?? Seriously?

The very forensic pathologist doctor expert guy that you quoted said the blood was emerging from the head, hands, feet, and side!

A DEAD BODY DOES NOT CONTINUE TO BLEED.

reply to post by wildtimes


Okay, can we just forget the shroud? I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways. And if it were confirmed 100% from Jesus people would worship it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Okay, can we just forget the shroud? I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways. And if it were confirmed 100% from Jesus people would worship it.

I agree actually....

I believe the shroud is a sham... Jesus likely did not have long hair... and wasn't especially good looking either. He is discribed as "comely"... which is hardly the case with the man wrapped in the shroud

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You're crazy.

AM NOT!!

Mad maybe... Please refer to the signature...

Protocol or not, he could have survived if his heart wasn't hit...

That protocol you speak of was protocol for dealing with dead folks, not the living.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Okay, can we just forget the shroud? I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways. And if it were confirmed 100% from Jesus people would worship it.

I agree actually....

I believe the shroud is a sham... Jesus likely did not have long hair... and wasn't especially good looking either. He is discribed as "comely"... which is hardly the case with the man wrapped in the shroud

And His beard was pulled out.

The shroud didn't die for me, Jesus did.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I believe in this case it would have been "dead or alive" because of the approaching sabbath...

He was stabbed to ensure he was dead... but it does not mean he was dead IF in fact the soldier missed his heart...

In the past the way to find out if someone was dead was to stick a pin in their hand to gage the reaction... many people were buried and even cut open that were still alive in the past as well... There are several documented cases of people that have been dead, waking up in the morgue... and even a few that woke up in their own coffen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, yes, I have looked at your links...I have read the physician reports that uphold your claim.

The medical doctors all say it's impossible given the details, that Christ survived the ordeal. You post as if you didn't read them saying that, or that you just plain reject the opinion of the doctors. If you did in fact read them, I apologize.

As for his wanting to die, yes, that is acknowledged. His friends, however, wanted to save him anyway.

Peter said that, but Christ rebuked him sternly saying he savored the things of men and not God.

JUST AS YOU DO NTT, DENYING THE DIVINE, GOD'S PRESENCE IN
THE EUCHARIST.

YOU'VE TAKEN OVER THE THREAD TO PREACH ABOUT SOMETHING
OFF TOPIC. IMPOLITE AND NOT RETURNING TO THE THREAD SUBJECT...REMEMBER THE RULE...KEEP IT ON TOPIC.

YOU DON'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, NOT NICE...CONSIDERING
YOU SPEAK OF YOUR LOVE FOR CHRIST. YOU'RE AFRAID OF
CATHOLIC QUESTIONS. MO. I BELIEVE I AM RIGHT. WHAT OTHER
REASON WOULD YOU HAVE TO BE SO RUDE?

YOU LIKE MY THREADS, I DON'T THINK IT IS PERSONAL.


colbe

Further, there were points in the prophecy that said he must live...

What prophecy are you referring to? The "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah is prophesied to die, but not for himself.

I can't prove any of this stuff, as you know; and I see this theory has been around for a long, long time. What I'm also seeing is that newer research and cross-referencing of extant original sources are being re-evaluated all the time, every day. Ditto for the "translations".

The details of the crucifixion haven't changed any.

There is a lot of vague cryptic talk in the Bible that glosses over things which any normal, educated adult would scratch their head to read. I've told you this is new to me, so I appreciate your patience in pointing me to your sources. That said, if the "swoon" or "coma" theory was to be shown as not only possible, but probable (hypothetically, of course) by a source that you trust already,

The swoon theory has never garnered much support throughout history. Certainly not from historians, scholars, or medical doctors. It's the "fringe" folks who adhere to it, and they do so in an attempt to discredit the resurrection, not the death by crucifixion. they cannot provide a suitable answer for the resurrection, so they back it up and try to envision a scenario where Christ didn't die to begin with.

But it's kinda absurd. That Jesus, after a Roman scourging, being nailed to a Roman cross, then once dead having a spear thrust into His chest, somehow without being in an ICU unit at a hospital, managed to just get up and walk away without no ill effects, even walking around Jerusalem, walking on the road to Emmaus, and eating and drinking with His disciples.

ABSURD! Even if the cross didn't kill Him, He'd be in an ICU unit for a few weeks just from the scourging itself!

Can you even just consider the hypothesis for a moment, long enough to answer that question honestly?

I've already considered the possibility. Like I've said, this swoon theory is nothing new. I've dealt with it numerous times when talking to Muslims. They believe Christ only swooned on the cross. I have considered it many times, it's not plausible based on the details we've been given of the crucifixion and the beating beforehand.

I am at this point not so much trying to discredit your beliefs as I am in trying to "decode" your thinking. What if....just...what if? What would you, personally do with that information?

I'll be honest with you, I do think you're trying to discredit my beliefs, and I think you're grasping at any straw you can to do so. If I'm wrong, I do apologize, that's just the impression you've left me with. I hope my assumption is wrong, that's just how you make me feel.

edit on 12-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

[/

reply to post by colbe

UST AS YOU DO NTT, DENYING THE DIVINE, GOD'S PRESENCE IN
THE EUCHARIST.

Huh? I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about when Jesus said to Peter "get thee behind me satan". Because he said they would never let them take Jesus captive to be killed. I was never talking about the eucharist.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Okay, can we just forget the shroud? I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways. And if it were confirmed 100% from Jesus people would worship it.

So what is? The Shroud touched Our Lord, it was His burial cloth
NTT. It is miraculous, Science says so in their way. No one worships
a relic, they revere it. You don't understand the difference so you
accuse worship.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Okay, can we just forget the shroud? I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways. And if it were confirmed 100% from Jesus people would worship it.

So what is? The Shroud touched Our Lord, it was His burial cloth
NTT. It is miraculous, Science says so in their way. No one worships
a relic, they revere it. You don't understand the difference so you
accuse worship.

No, a lot of people would revere such a thing, even take vacations to visit in person I'm sure. But there would also be a fringe group of loonies who would worship the relic.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Okay, can we just forget the shroud? I don't consider it relevant to Christianity anyways. And if it were confirmed 100% from Jesus people would worship it.

So what is? The Shroud touched Our Lord, it was His burial cloth
NTT. It is miraculous, Science says so in their way. No one worships
a relic, they revere it. You don't understand the difference so you
accuse worship.

No, a lot of people would revere such a thing, even take vacations to visit in person I'm sure. But there would also be a fringe group of loonies who would worship the relic.

Says who? You...NTT. How do you know? And now you are using the two words "revere" and "worship." Cancels your saying people worship the Shroud. Stick to your story.

So why did you say "forget it?" You don't believe it is the burial cloth
of Our Lord?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

UST AS YOU DO NTT, DENYING THE DIVINE, GOD'S PRESENCE IN
THE EUCHARIST.

Huh? I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about when Jesus said to Peter "get thee behind me satan". Because he said they would never let them take Jesus captive to be killed. I was never talking about the eucharist.

That's not what you said to wildtimes. Here are your words in quote.


"Peter said that, but Christ rebuked him sternly saying he savored the things of men and not God."

Liar, liar, pants on fire (humor). Things of God are supernatural, the Eucharist is supernatural, it is God and you reject the Eucharist. It's time to change before the Great Warning. You can. I said the same to jm, you need to hear it too.

WHY WOULD ANYONE ACCEPT JUICE AND CRACKERS WHEN THEY
CAN RECEIVE GOD HIMSELF, JESUS CHRIST INTO THEIR PERSON?


you gotta change brother,

reply to post by colbe


No colbe, right here, Matthew chapter 16:

22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter was rebuked for what he said to Jesus.

reply to post by colbe

Says who? You...NTT. How do you know? And now you are using the two words "revere" and "worship." Cancels your saying people worship the Shroud. Stick to your story.

Story? I said if it could be determined 100% it was His then people would begin to worship it.

So why did you say "forget it?" You don't believe it is the burial cloth
of Our Lord?

I don't know if it is or isn't, just saying I don't care. It has nothing to do with our justification, it's a burial cloth. Jesus died for us, the shroud didn't. The shroud stayed in the tomb when Jesus stepped out of it. My faith doesn't rest on the shroud being real or fake.. whatever really.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe

 

No colbe, right here, Matthew chapter 16:

22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter was rebuked for what he said to Jesus.

edit on 12-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Figure it out, you just posted it again. You NTT, are like Peter, you reject
the things of God, you do not savour the things of God. You reject
God's gift of Himself in the Eucharist.

You go with and accept ridiculous juice and crackers. Are you insane? Why do settle for nothing when you can receive Jesus in the Eucharist?

reply to post by colbe


I'm not even discussing the eucharist, what are you talking about?