Can someone help me out here. Is it possible (and I do believe that there is a school of thought that thinks so) that Christ did not die on the cross. In other words could he have survived his injuries and gotten the heck out of Dodge once he recovered. Seems like a possibility. Anyone?
I suppose it is always a possibility unless one takes the Bible literally.
The only accounts we currently have of the crucifixion of Christ are in the Gospels themselves. However, given Roman practices the odds against him surviving are pretty well stacked. Here’s the reasoning.
-
People mention that he was given a number of lashes (by Hebrew tradition it would have been 40 minus 1 but the Romans woul dgive as many as they liked) but what most people don’t realize is that this wasn’t just a bullwhip that was used on him. It was a Scourge which was a particularly nasty piece of equpment. Typically during a scourging the victim would have to be turned around after a certain point because there would frequently be no more whole flesh on the victims back for it to bite into. In the original Greek text the word that was used to describe Christ’s condition can be roughly translated as “hamburger meat”
-
Obviously the massive open wounds caused by this, along with the very dry climate of the area would lead to a rather rapid evaporation and hence thickening of the blood.
-
When in the position a person is when nailed to a cross the diaphragm is essentially paralyzed. Victims of crucifixion would breathe by pushing up and down on the nail through their feet allowing them to gain a little bit of breathing room. As an act of “mercy” the Romans would often, after a period of time, break the legs of the condemned so hasten their deaths. When they went about doing this Christ was seen to already be dead.
-
After seeing he appeared to be dead they peirced his side with a spear, punturing the pericardium. The Biblical account states that blood and water came out of the wound, evidence of a fatal heart attack likely brought on by an extreme thickening of the blood due to his wounds.
I would have to personally say that the odds are quite good that Christ died up there. The real question regarding his death and resurrection should be whether or not he was resurrected or his body simply stolen away in the night.
Check out the book “The Passover Plot” by Hugh Schonfield. He discusses some of the possibilities. It may well be out of print now, but you might find a copy used or in your library.
There is a book, The Passover Plot by Hugh Schonfield that was made into a movie by the same name. I read the book many, many years ago and it promotes the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross, but as I remember he was wounded so bad that he died soon afterwards, therefore spoiling “the plot”.
Well, if you accept the bible as a historical source that says:
[list=1]
[li]Jesus existed.[/li][li]Was convicted of a capital crime.[/li][li]Was nalied to the cross as the form of execution.[/li][li]Died and was buried.[/li][/list=1]
Then why would you doubt the the veracity of #4, but accept as true #1-3?
The argument that he didn’t die on the cross is so that skeptics of resurrection can explain why Jesus was seen after his death. But, this means that they are accepting again the bible’s veracity in claiming that he was seen after the crucifixion, but doubt the veracity of the claim that he died on the cross.
Seems rather arbitrary as to why one piece of data is considered false, while most of the other is considered true except in order to dismiss resurrection.
Peace.
“It was obviously Jesus’ alien DNA which enable him to fake death.”
Muslims believe that someone else died on the Cross in place of Christ, IIRC. In one of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail books, the authors put forth the theory that Christ was drugged so as to appear dead, since Pontius and others seem surprised that Christ died when he did. From what I recall from the book, it was considered an act of compassion to break the legs of someone being crucified as they’d be unable to support themselves and thus suffocate faster.
Jake Johanson used to say that Jesus slipped in the shower and died from a head wound. The Apostles knew they couldn’t write this big long book and conclude with “…and then he slipped in the shower and died. The end” So they faked the entire crucifixion and so on.
This all sounds ridiculous right? But if Jesus wasn’t the son of God, then some sort of hoax had to be done. The resurection. The miricles. Etc. Is it possible that Jesus existed, but everything he did was a huge rouse, a conspiracy against the Romans?
Not true, actually. The Romans observed Hebrew traditions such as this in order to avoid Jewish uprisings. However, they frequently used many-tailed whips and scourges in order to effectively increase the number of lashes while not transgressing Jewish law.
You’re right about the scourge, hamburger meat and so on, so I’d say in this case it’s Romans 1, Jesus 0.
the “evidence” that Jesus might have been drugged and survived the crucifixition include - speculation in
Jesus knew in advance that he was up for crucifixition [and thus had time to prepare]
He had rich and influential friends like Joseph of Aramathea - [and so could afford the odd bribe to underpaid roman guards]
He “died” suspiciously early - most crucifixees lasted 3 days - he didn’t last the one. Even Pilate was suspicious and had to ask for confirmation. He was taken down that night
Moments before he “died” someone lifted a sponge for him to drink [knockout potion]
His legs were not broken which would have killed him on the cross
When he was seen alive he still had the holes in his limbs [he survived as a person, not as a spiritual being]
Thomas did not recognise him [he was in disguise in case the Romans found him again]
Ok highly speculative. But if like me as a atheist you accept the bible as a reasonable historical source (barring the obvious legends like Adam and Eve), and accept Jesus as a historical figure, then one has to come up with an account of how he survived the crucifixition - the above account is not unreasonable
Jesus was pronounced dead by the professional executioners of Rome. I would also like to know what kinds of drugs would have been available in first-century Palestine that would allow a person to survive crucifixion, being stabbed in the side with a spear, and then being buried alive for some thirty hours.
Regards,
Shodan
moriah and scm1001
I think historians would question your assumptions about what “accepting as a historical source” implies. There’s no obligation or logical requirement to accept everything in a historical account as being of equal validity. Reporters are unreliable and have their own agendas, so accounts can quite easily be unreliable in some areas, yet still useful in others. For instance, Herodotus mixes good history with hearsay garbage. Similarly, Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul is probably accurate in its basic account of events, but what he claims about the Gauls to justify the campaign may well be selective or propaganda. Treating the Bible purely as a historical account, it’s likely to contain a similar mix.
From what I remember, a sponge was lifted up to Jesus to drink.
This sponge contained Wine, Vinegar, or a Tincture of Gall…an Opium derivative…this depending on whe source.
I was under the impression that a Roman Centurion or the like lifted this sponge up to Christ at the tip of his spear.
If Christ’s death was to be faked, why would a Roman be “in on it”?
Although I personally believe the resurrection occurred; if I was skeptical of the event, I would find it much easier to question the re-appearance of Jesus after his death than to question the death itself.
What would the motive of Jesus’ followers be to fake his death? They didn’t want him or expect him to die. They thought he was going to free them from the Romans.
Stealing the body and proclaiming him raised from the dead makes slightly more sense logically, if you can get everyone to stick to the story under pain of torture and death.
According to the Bible, Jesus wasn’t buried:
There is a big survival difference between being buried six feet under and laying in a cave with a rock in front of it.
To a skeptic/atheist: If he died on the cross, then he didn’t walk out of the tomb on his own. Something else happened and wild stories followed. (think of any group that is fanatical about their leader and the crazy steps they’ll take and the story they will weave afterwards. In the modern era alone, look at what fanatics have done!) Or, he could have been removed from the cross prior to death (for whatever reason) and been able to recover and/or have his body removed.
Almost any scenario can work, from an imposter to bribery, etc, given the nature of the people and the twists that story telling by followers can lead to.
Interesting…
Well scm1001’s theories have interest. What if
a powerful friend of Jesus wanted him to survive? It was clear that Pontious Pilot did not whish to kill Jesus, but felt it necessary for him to die to appease the Pharasees (sp?) and Jewish law. If the rich friend of Jesus approached the Romans could he have spent enough money to have the Crusifixtion carried out, but not completed, bribing the Romans involved to claim Jesuses death, and to put him into the friends own tomb. Would Joseph of Arametha have that sort of power? if the death was against Pilot’s wishes, and Joseph agreed to keep Jesus safe and out of public view for the rest of Jesuses life, may the Romans have been bribeable?
Quite possibly, this imaginary schenario would have been kept secret even from Jesuses disciples.
If after these events Jesus, probably against the wishes of his saver was to visit his disciples in disguise, and the disguise was penitrated by one of his previous followers, then what is recorded in the bible about the resurection could have occured without a divine reurection actually having occured.
So we have a schenario, which leaves the accounts of death and resurection of Christ according to the bible as truthful from the point of view of the writers of the Gospels and their sources. But the actual events may have been unusual but mundane, not miraculous.
…mmmm, hardly know what to think of this possibility.
Does any Roman History scholar know of incidences in which executioners were bribed into faking an exicution of a condemned man or woman?
Cheers, Bippy
Couldn’t agree more. My feeling on the NT is where 4 gospels agree (even though there are common sources within them) the evidence is higher. So Lazarus (just John) lesser probability than say sermon on the mount. Jesus’s taking of “vinegar” just before his death (3 gospels) more likely than piercing with spear (just John) - which also answers Shodans point.
sorry to double post, but one final thing. If my second rate speculation is to hold any validity then why did Jesus allow himself to go through it? I have no real answers and it is the weakest point of my argument. Maybe it was without his knowledge with his disciples determined to save him - remember that his disciples probably did not really consider him as a deity at this stage and thus quite able to look after himself.
Because, with numbers 1-3, we can see the writers of the gospels as honest guys who recorded, as best they could, what they heard as the truth, and have that story consistent with the world as we understand it.
With number 4, and the resurrection, you have to believe in something supernatural, somebody fibbing, or somebody misunderstanding what events they were told about in a big way.
Perhaps the OP feels that somebody misunderstanding what they were told about is the most likely explanation. Even if Christ claimed he died when he hadn’t, you’ve only got one person deliberately lying rather than an entire group of them.