Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion?

[Hatuey]

Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Your thoughts? Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion?

 

[partier9]

I doubt it, the Romans made sure he would die when they plunged a sword into him. Though crucifixions normally lasted longer than three days, they sped it up because the Sabboth was coming up so i doubt he would of survived.

 

[Tashah]

During the Roman occupation of Judea, thousands of Jews were crucified. To my knowledge, no condemned Jew survived this type of execution. Typically in a Roman crucifixion, asphyxiation is the primary cause of death.

 

[Hatuey]

During the Roman occupation of Judea, thousands of Jews were crucified. To my knowledge, no condemned Jew survived this type of execution. Typically in a Roman crucifixion, asphyxiation is the primary cause of death.

This is not entirely true and you'd have known it if you'd watched the documentary. There is talk of a man who did in fact survived a crucifixion. Watch at around 10:30 to 11:30.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Could Jesus have survived a stabbing after all that blood loss from torture?

I doubt it, the Romans made sure he would die when they plunged a sword into him. Though crucifixions normally lasted longer than three days, they sped it up because the Sabboth was coming up so i doubt he would of survived.

I thought the Roman centurion killed him with a spear and not a sword...

 

[rivrrat]

Well, if people actually did see him alive afterwards (as per the stories), then apparently he did survive it. There's no doubt in my mind that they THOUGHT he was dead. There's serious doubt, however, that he actually *was*. (if the stories about him being alive afterwards are to be believed)

Of course, this would require believing that he existed at all.

 

[WI Crippler]

David Caruso revitalized his career, so I guess anything is possible.

 

[partier9]

Re: Could Jesus have survived a stabbing after all that blood loss from torture?

I thought the Roman centurion killed him with a spear and not a sword...

your right spear i was just typing fast and not paying attention to what i typed.

 

[Tashah]

This is not entirely true and you'd have known it if you'd watched the documentary. There is talk of a man who did in fact survived a crucifixion. Watch at around 10:30 to 11:30.

Please. I also watched the Ossuary (burial box) of Jesus documenatry which was later proven to be a sham.

 

[Cephus]

Since there's no reason to believe Jesus ever existed or was crucified in the first place, it's a worthless question. Sure, the imaginary Messiah could have survived the imaginary crucification using whatever god-magic believers want to invent, doesn't make it so.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Since there's no reason to believe Jesus ever existed or was crucified in the first place, it's a worthless question. Sure, the imaginary Messiah could have survived the imaginary crucification using whatever god-magic believers want to invent, doesn't make it so.

Technically there is A reason, the historian Josephus mentioned his death and crucifixion. I would go so far as to say he existed.

 

[partier9]

Since there's no reason to believe Jesus ever existed or was crucified in the first place, it's a worthless question. Sure, the imaginary Messiah could have survived the imaginary crucification using whatever god-magic believers want to invent, doesn't make it so.

What are you talking about, there are historical records showing that a man named jesus lived and was born in Bethlham, the Romans have records of this. The arguement should be whether or not he was the son of god. Which most of this country believes he is.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is not entirely true and you'd have known it if you'd watched the documentary. There is talk of a man who did in fact survived a crucifixion. Watch at around 10:30 to 11:30.

John 19:30-34

30 14 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. 31 Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, 34 15 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.

 

[partier9]

John 19:30-34

30 14 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. 31 Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, 34 15 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.

that pretty much sum's it up.

 

[Cephus]

Technically there is A reason, the historian Josephus mentioned his death and crucifixion. I would go so far as to say he existed.

No, early Christians forged the passage in Jewish Antiquities, there is no reason whatsoever to think that a Jew who never converted to Christianity would ever write about the Messiah.

It was a forgery and a piss-poor one at that.

Regardless, even if you want to assume that Josephus really wrote it, he was going off of heresay, he wasn't born until after Jesus supposedly died.

 

[Cephus]

What are you talking about, there are historical records showing that a man named jesus lived and was born in Bethlham, the Romans have records of this. The arguement should be whether or not he was the son of god. Which most of this country believes he is.

No, there aren't. If you think there are, produce them. There ain't no such thing.

 

[1069]

Technically there is A reason, the historian Josephus mentioned his death and crucifixion. I would go so far as to say he existed.

"Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay."

Josephus's account means nothing, since he wasn't even born until years after Christ was allegedly crucified, and didn't "mention" Christ (in his writings) until 93 AD.

link

Actually, I've researched this fairly objectively (since I have no emotional investment in whether Jesus, as a historical personage, actually existed or not) and my conclusion is that he probably didn't.

 

[partier9]

No, there aren't. If you think there are, produce them. There ain't no such thing.

here is 9 accounts of jesus in my link

Extra biblical accounts of Jesus

 

[Hatuey]

Please. I also watched the Ossuary (burial box) of Jesus documenatry which was later proven to be a sham.

What does that have to do with the fact that people did in deed survive crucifixion?

 

[Hatuey]

John 19:30-34

30 14 When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. 31 Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, 34 15 but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out.

....I always thought the good and bad thief died long before Jesus....

 

[Cephus]

here is 9 accounts of jesus in my link

Since the majority of them have nothing to do with Jesus (Josephus mentioning Herod doesn't prove a damn thing about Jesus), we can dismiss the first 4, especially since Josephus had nothing to do with the passage on Jesus, as we've already shown.

#5: Again, Tacitus was not an eyewitness to Jesus, having been born long after Jesus died. At best, he was writing from heresay and he makes several serious errors in his account that call the whole thing into question. First, Jesus was not called Christus and would never have been referred to in the Roman Record that way. It's almost certain that Tacitus heard of the Christians and their claims from his good friend Pliny the Younger during his governorship of Bithynia-Pontus. Secondly, he refers to Pilate as procurator of Judea which is incorrect, Pilate was prefect of Roman Iudaea from A.D. 26 - A.D. 36. and Tacitus would have known this if he was going from the Roman records. Finally, because Tacitus was writing this in A.D. 115, specifically to draw away attention from himself for Rome's burning in A.D. 64, it's even more difficult to believe he was researching the Roman records. Tacitus is not a witness and has no facts, hence he's not evidence for Jesus.

#6: Since the writings of Thallus are lost to us, it's not possible to know what he really wrote, we only have the second-hand account in Julius Africanus to go by. What we do know is that religious historians have repeatedly invented "facts" about Thallus, such as his being a Samaritan, that are not known to be true. The only work we know of supposedly by Thallus is Histories and judging by all other references to this work, there is a window anywhere between 109 B.C. and A.D. 180 that it could have been written in, Theophilus doesn't mention Thallus until 180 A.D. Since it seems clear that Thallus references Luke, that places Histories after 90 A.D., perhaps far after, placing him too late to be an eyewitness to the crucifiction of Jesus. Further in the same passage, Julius Africanus also claims that Phlegon was an eyewitness, but it's known that Phlegon didn't write until the 140s A.D. and couldn't have been born at the time of the crucifiction. Clearly we're looking at an apologist who purposely lies about eyewitnesses and draws conclusions specifically to demonstrate that his beliefs are true. Again, no evidence for Jesus.

#7: Pliny the Younger mentioned CHRISTIANS, not Jesus. He was having problems with Christians and wrote very negatively about them. Unfortunately, Pliny still fails to be an eyewitness because he was not born until around 61 A.D.

#8: The Talmud reference is to Balaam, not Jesus and the references are very unflattering. Yebamoth 49b refers to this Jesus character as a bastard born of adultery. Sanhedrin 106a&b call Miriam the hairdresser (the Mary character) a whore and Jesus (Balaam) an evil man. Shabbath 104b says Jesus was a magician and fool and Mary was an adulteress. Sanhedrin 106 clearly describes someone different from the biblical Jesus: A sectarian said to R. Chanina: Do you know how old Balaam was? [R. Chanina] replied: It is not written. However, since it says (Psalms 55:24) "Men of bloodshed and deceit will not live out half their days..." he was 33 or 34. [The heretic] said: You said well. I have seen the chronicle of Balaam and it said "At 33 years Balaam the lame was killed by Pinchas (Phineas) the robber." You're using this as evidence of your Messiah?

#9: Lucian, again, wasn't around to see Jesus, he's just reporting heresay from Christians. No one denies that Christians follow Jesus, that doesn't mean that Jesus was real or that Jesus did any of the things described in the Bible.

All 9 done away with, no evidence to be found. And you're honestly using Josh McDowell as a reference? The complete and total laughing stock John McDowell?

Something tells me you need to do better research.

 

[justone]

Since the majority of them have nothing to do with Jesus (Josephus mentioning Herod doesn't prove a damn thing about Jesus), we can dismiss the first 4, especially since Josephus had nothing to do with the passage on Jesus, as we've already shown.

#5: Again, Tacitus was not an eyewitness to Jesus, having been born long after Jesus died. At best, he was writing from heresay and he makes several serious errors in his account that call the whole thing into question. First, Jesus was not called Christus and would never have been referred to in the Roman Record that way. It's almost certain that Tacitus heard of the Christians and their claims from his good friend Pliny the Younger during his governorship of Bithynia-Pontus. Secondly, he refers to Pilate as procurator of Judea which is incorrect, Pilate was prefect of Roman Iudaea from A.D. 26 - A.D. 36. and Tacitus would have known this if he was going from the Roman records. Finally, because Tacitus was writing this in A.D. 115, specifically to draw away attention from himself for Rome's burning in A.D. 64, it's even more difficult to believe he was researching the Roman records. Tacitus is not a witness and has no facts, hence he's not evidence for Jesus.

#6: Since the writings of Thallus are lost to us, it's not possible to know what he really wrote, we only have the second-hand account in Julius Africanus to go by. What we do know is that religious historians have repeatedly invented "facts" about Thallus, such as his being a Samaritan, that are not known to be true. The only work we know of supposedly by Thallus is Histories and judging by all other references to this work, there is a window anywhere between 109 B.C. and A.D. 180 that it could have been written in, Theophilus doesn't mention Thallus until 180 A.D. Since it seems clear that Thallus references Luke, that places Histories after 90 A.D., perhaps far after, placing him too late to be an eyewitness to the crucifiction of Jesus. Further in the same passage, Julius Africanus also claims that Phlegon was an eyewitness, but it's known that Phlegon didn't write until the 140s A.D. and couldn't have been born at the time of the crucifiction. Clearly we're looking at an apologist who purposely lies about eyewitnesses and draws conclusions specifically to demonstrate that his beliefs are true. Again, no evidence for Jesus.

#7: Pliny the Younger mentioned CHRISTIANS, not Jesus. He was having problems with Christians and wrote very negatively about them. Unfortunately, Pliny still fails to be an eyewitness because he was not born until around 61 A.D.


#9: Lucian, again, wasn't around to see Jesus, he's just reporting heresay from Christians. No one denies that Christians follow Jesus, that doesn't mean that Jesus was real or that Jesus did any of the things described in the Bible.


Something tells me you need to do better research.

And all you have said can come from the only one source: writings of Christian monks. Do you really trust Christian monks in your analyses? And if you trust them, why do you trust to one writings and don’t trust to others from the same source?

It is quite clear that anything you can know about Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Tacitus, and others can come only from the same monks who were rewritting the Bible. You have no other sources to compare or to doubt the given ones. Why do you trust them on one half and don’t trust them on another half?
Image:WorksJosephus1640TP.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Something tells me you need to do better research.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Interesting.

Well it seems that even Josephus' references to Christ are not concrete either.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earliest Greek manuscripts are dated to the 9th century, are there is some skepticism amongst scholars whether or not Josephus references to Christ are his recordings, or may even be partially correct.

Well for a figure in history that is meant to be extremely important the actual historical evidence outside of the Bible is not strong by any standards.

 

[justone]

Interesting.

It would be even more interesting if you dropped shores of atheism and learned some math and science.

Well it seems that even Josephus' references to Christ are not concrete either.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may seem so to you only because your mind is tied in ropes of atheism.

Earliest Greek manuscripts are dated to the 9th century,

It is a fantasy, - they are NOT dated. There is no possibility to date them except for following quite uncertain dating established by Christian monks. Are you sure the monks could not do a mistake?

there is some skepticism amongst scholars whether or not Josephus references to Christ are his recordings, or may even be partially correct.

This skepticism has no reasons behind it but just hatred of Christianity. In order to be skeptical there should be some basis for skepticism. Skepticism with no basic is a mere expression of hatred. The idea itself - that the same Christian monks can be correct in one part of their writings but incorrect in another one is already fallacious, -WHEN there are NO other sources except for their writings, no benchmark, no anything to compare.

No manuscripts had been dated until 8th – 9th century, and then we can know about 8th – 9th century dates only from Christian writings. Also we know from the same writings that the dating was flawed and very uncertain. Only in 16th! Century Christians started producing more or less certain chronology by adding ANCIENT chronology and since that time all historians have to use it. It is called Scaliger’s chronology. The main difference between the Christian historians including Scaliger and your historians born by the anti-scientific revolution is that Scaliger and Christians were required to take math and astronomy while wiki historians become historians because they are not capable of math. That was Scaliger who “dated’’ ‘’Ancient’’ Greeks on the base of uncertain descriptions of positions of stars at a mentioned events. Scaliger was corrected many times by other Christians, including Newton who found that Scaliger was 30 years off in his calculation of the year of birth of JC, - so we should be celebrating year 1978, but not 2008. Scaliger based his work on works of Copernicus and other Christian theologians, - on their descriptions of the motions of celestial bodies that could not be absolutely accurate, just because of the lack of telescope and other advances made by Christians later on. But Newton’s correction was very inconvenient, - it called for rewriting of too many of Christian books. Christian monks had not only to date the texts they were rewriting, but also to decode them, because they were written in totally different manner – often like this: Chrstn’ mksHntnl.t. dtTtxts’ T wr rwrtng = Christian monks had not only to date the texts they were rewriting. Are you sure the monks could not do a mistake? The difference between monks decoding such texts and wiki historians is that the monks were a lot closer in their thinking to the originals than wiki historians could ever be.

There are a lot of Qs to Scaliger’s chronology and I doubt they will be answered, not at least, in your life time. It is full of things we know cannot happen, cannot exist. As an example, - see Lightdemons’ picture of a Chinese sail boat. It is clear to any engineer that such a boat can never sail. History is full of such boats, - because historians are neither capable of basic math nor of understanding basic engineering. Your historians have created tons of myths and mysteries, and you base your beliefs on mythology.

Well for a figure in history that is meant to be extremely important the actual historical evidence outside of the Bible is not strong by any standards.

Buy what standards? If to follow your standards there is no figure in history before Scalinger that can be confirmed by historical evidence. Josephus exists in
Christian writings and there is no reason not to trust them, unless in the even measure and under the even standard you do not want to trust existence of Aristotle, Plato, Thales, Augustus, Nero, Alexander of Macedonia and others.

Why don’t you try to use your brain for thinking at least once:

1. Answer me step by step how do you see the whole chain of events.
Step #1. Aristotle writes a book at his home. Step #2, Step # 3…step #n, in the last step the book appears in writing of Christian monks. – What steps has it gone through during 1000 years.? Tell me step by step. Understand paper, ink, the art of writing, humidity, mold, no temperature regulations, everything is burned by wars. Show me step by step how such a miracle possibly could happen.

2. Answer to me how did it happen – Aristotle according to fantasies of wiki historians lived in Ancient Greece, where people according to fantasies of wiki historians were worshiping multiple gods of all kinds. How do you explain that the Lambda book of Metaphysics is solely devoted to attempts to put a logical base under existance of one G-d, the more how God is also called the Unmoved Mover, Supreme Being (which is totally Christian lexichology)?

3 How do you explain that this writing is not too much different from usual Christian theology?

4. How do you explain that Arictotle not only was not persecuted as a heretic, but moreover was famous and prominent in the Ancient Greece?.

5. How do you explain that practically immediately after dating of the first known Aristotle writtings St Thomas Aquinas practically continues the same positions and comes up with his logical prove of G-d? Like there was not 1000 years bewteen them. Where step by step the human thought could be for 100 years?

Is not THIS really interesting?I am very curious. The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that an atheist knows all the answers and knows that if he does not know an answer there is wiki and atheist do com at hand where he can find any answer, when Christians don’t buy myths and miracles and don’t know all the answers. I am very curious if you can come up with any answers, because even if I have some thoughts I cannot be certain. I am very curious. But please understand, I am a Christian, I don’t buy myths and miracles, so you have to avoid them and to try be down to earth .

 

[Mach]

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that an atheist knows all the answers and knows that if he does not know an answer there is wiki and atheist do com at hand where he can find any answer, when Christians don’t buy myths and miracles and don’t know all the answers.

What are you communicating here?

The difference between an atheist and a Christian, is that a Christian is by definition a theist, and the atheist is by definition not a theist.

This stuff about being smart and knowing how to use the internet to research topics is interesting, but hardly relevant.

If it's your experience that most religious people don't know many answers, and don't know how to use online encyclopedias, OK, but let's not generalize about religious people being less knowledgeable than atheists. It's just not right (logically).

-Mach