I guess there’s two points in my thread. 1) Jesus did not die on the cross - thus there is no ‘resurrection’. and 2) he ended up traveling to India - where he died at some later date.
First, the most overwhelming piece of evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross is the mention that Jesus bled when they were cutting him down from the cross. Ask any medical examiner, and they will confirm that noone bleeds post-mortem. I’ve only heard these points second hand (and am not one to read the bible) - so I wonder if anyone has any confirmation/thoughts on this…
Second, I’ve heard rumblings that Jesus traveled to India - and there is a temple where he is actually buried. Wow! Wouldn’t modern science love to get ahold of Jesus’ bones!! Anybody have any confirmation on this? I have an article somewhere describing Jesus’ teaching in India - I’ll post more info if I can find it.
There is no statement that Jesus that Jesus bled “while they were cutting him down.” There is a statement that to ensure that he was dead a Roman soldier pushed a spear into his side and blood and water emerged from the wound. There have been lengthy discussions, elsewhere, as to the possibility of this happening. It usually comes down to trying to determine which internal organ would have had blood and some other substance in it that would have leaked out upon the organ being ruptured. Certainly, any fluid that had not yet congealed (immediately after death) could run out of a perforated organ. This does not prove anything regarding the death of Jesus, except to point out that your first premise is based on a faulty understanding of the events as they were described.
Sending Jesus off to India or Tibet or wherever is a convenient way to put a double-whammy on Christianity–not only did Jesus not rise from the dead, he bugged out for foreign parts making his whole life a lie. However, there is less evidence for that than that he even was crucified to begin with.
Without making any claims for the Christian tradition, I can note that your story has little to recommend it. Jesus could have just died and his disciples could have invented the whole rsurrection bit out of whole cloth without having to send Jesus away to India.
Are there any particular sources that you might provide for these tales?
I’ve asked as many medical examiners as you have: none. Do you think that if I cut your head off, that you won’t bleed from the neck? Certainly, bleeding stops some time post-mortem, but not immediately. If we grant your statement that Jesus bled when he was cut down from the cross, the question is, how soon after death was he cut down? Since you’ve quoted no biblical text substantiating your statement, we’re just guessing.
I’m curious as to whether you actually asked a medical examiner yourself (or maybe you are one?).
I presume you’re talking about this passage:
I had been told that this might have been an accumulation of fluid in the pericardium due to shock and that this might have been the actual cause of death; it seems reasonable that a spear thrust intended to cause/confirm death would be aimed to strike the heart and the accumulated fluid would most likely wash out some blood with it.
Doesn’t blood start to separate into its component parts (plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc.) when it is not mixed by the actions of the circulatory system? Could the “blood and water” actually be whole blood separated into plasma and a RBC rich mix of plasma and the other components?
I decided to google this since I had never heard of such a thing. I found these two links. These seem to deal with Jesus going to India after surviving the crucifixion. None of this really seems plausible in my opinion.
I don’t know about this particular objection, but there are others. There is one I can remember that concerns his last words. During a crucifixion, it is almost impossible to get a full breath. It would seem that it would have been nearly impossible for Jesus to speak at all, let alone loud enough for others to hear him. Add to that the inconsistencies in the description of what he said…I don’t know. Maybe there is an explanation, but I can’t see it.
At least some people DID have trouble hearing him. See Matthew 27:46-47.
Quite simply, none of the accounts purport to record every single word that he uttered from the cross, or all the same details regarding the crucifixion. See http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/bible-interp-20.html, for example.
I don’t surf, so I don’t make any assumptions as to what surfing a wave is like. I’ve never read “War and Peace”, so I don’t make any assumptions as to what Tolstoy believed.
If you don’t read the bible, How can you make any assumptions as to any events. And I’m not just talking about reading a scripture or two that someone else pointed out.
When following a recipe for Coq au Vin, if you just read the part that says: add wine, and nothing else, how are you supposed to make the dish correctly. It would be incomplete.
Why do people try to deny that Jesus rose from the dead? They don’t deny his other miracle.
In reading the bible, Jesus doesn’t come across to me as some kind of trickster or magician with a great slight of hand.
When people want to believe what they want and only want to listen to what makes them feel good, you become a seperatist which is how we have well over 1000 different christian denominations…All supposedly following the same bible…Hmmm
I can speak to the issue of blood after death. In Paul Barber’s book “Vampires, Burial & Death” (1990, Yale University Press) he puts forth a theory of how the phenomenon of Vampires in folklore can be explained as based on the actual observations of people who dug up corpses. One of the things which surprised them (i.e. the villagers) was the liquid blood in the corpse (which sometimes oozed out of the mouth).
Apparently blood coagulates soon after death. You would assume that it stayed that way and therefore a corpse that bled when cut was not actually dead. In fact, according to Barber, blood reliquifies after it coagulates (though I think that it is no longer quite the same as the blood of living body).
Therefore liquid blood is not proof of a corpse being alive. This may not explain the passage in John. Furthermore I frankly admit that I have no idea whether Paul Barber is to be trusted in this matter other than the fact that he was published by reputable press and gives citations for his assertations that don’t seem wacko. To be honest, I think that many people on this board cite sources that are a lot less reliable without a disclaimer such as mine. On the other hand I think that many people on this board provide even more airtight cites.
What I’m getting at is that I am skeptical that if you "Ask any medical examiner… they will confirm that noone [sic] bleeds post-mortem. "
I can’t speak as to the accuracy of the information here, as I myself am not associated with the Ahmadiyya Muslims, I merely know a few people who are. When I saw the title this is what immediately came to mind. Hope this is of some relevance.
Incidentally, funfan: A lot of us deny his other miracles. We’re called ‘non-christians’ (ok, to be fair, some non-christians don’t deny Jesus’ miracles. That’s a side issue though).
I think funfan may have been asking why (some)people insist that Jesus didn’t die on the cross and rise from the dead (because that would be sooooo improbable), no he simply flew away with the martians or turned transparent and escaped (they reject what they believe to be an unreasonable position only to accept another that is at least equally unlikely)
I should point out that in order to beleive that Jesus went to India it is not necessary to deny the resurrection. He could have died, resurrected and then gone to India. Unless I am mistaken there is, or used to be, a (small) British sect which believed that he visited Glastonbury after his resurrection, so why not India? After all, the Gospels don’t tell us what he was doing every day during the forty days between resurrection and ascension.
The problem with any discussion about the ‘Jesus in India’ theory is that almost everyone who wants to discuss it, whether for or against, will tend to have some ulterior motive. The site posted above by kitarak is a good example of Muslims accepting the theory because they feel that it fits with their existing assumptions about Jesus. Conventional Christians are just as likely to reject it because it contradicts their assumptions about him.
The following pages arguably fall into the latter category but, even if one discounts or qualifies their overconfidence in ‘the historical reliability of the New Testament’, they still do a good job of debunking the claims of Nicholas Notovitch, the Russian writer who was largely responsible for starting the story.
As they point out, the argument that Jesus travelled to India after the crucifixion is, in fact, inconsistent with the claims by Notovitch on which it is ultimately based.
