Alternatives to the crucifixion story

S

Sorcerer

Put a Spell on you
Registered Senior Member
Maybe I should have posted this on the religion thread, but I didn't want to upset people there.

Assuming the facts in the story are correct (OK, big assumption), there could be a prosaic explanation of what happened. Jesus was taken off the cross before he was dead, either because his mates bribed the guards, or because the authorities allowed it, due to political pressure or for some other reason. They patched him up and a few days later he was able to get around, but then he died of his wounds.

Does that sound more likely than coming back from the dead?
 
If you do not want to believe in it, why bother asking questions about it.

There is plenty of things in this world that cannot be explained, and most people would not even fathom how they exist or work.

So you either accept how its written or you do not.
 
andy1033 said:
If you do not want to believe in it, why bother asking questions about it.

There is plenty of things in this world that cannot be explained, and most people would not even fathom how they exist or work.

So you either accept how its written or you do not.
Click to expand...

This is a science forum so people ask questions.
 
One of the biggest problems, in terms of judging the past, is using the standards of one time in history, to judge another time. In this case using the present to judge the past. This is like the arm chair quarterback watching the Monday highlights, and boasting how he would not have thrown the pass on Sunday. Conditions are different in real time than in recorded time.

Some judge slavery of the past, like arm chair quarterbacks 150 year later, based on all the history hi-lights, and think the people of the past also had this data. The past had none of this data since it did not happen yet. It is like each generation remembers the past with nostalgia. The next generation may see eye to eye, from the POV in the present. It seems lame.

I would prefer go back to a time in history and try to look through their eyes. It is like listening to the parents tell their stories and you try to relate and live in their time by learning the ways of that time.

That being said, our modern knowledge of medicine and science is quite different from 2000 years ago. They did not measure brain waves using electronics, in case revisionists history using the armchair quarterback highlights, said differently. If Jesus went into shock, after so much pain and damage, death would be pronounced after he passed out. He was poked with the spear, to make sure he was not faking. One can be beaten and left for dead only to come back. The body will shut down and the layman will assume dead. Several days later he comes to.

If someone drown back 2000 years ago, and you rescued then, and used modern CPR to revive then, it would be called a miracle. Today is a novelty act, but back then this would be awe inspiring. You would be considered someone who could breath life into the dead. They did not have Monday recap to see that this has an explanation in science, but rather they are living only on Sunday, inside the game.

I remember when the first heart transplant was called a miracle of science. Now it is a routine procedure. If you use the Monday highlights, to explain the first successful transplant, the entire excitement of the original event seems overboard, since this a dime a dozen. It is useful to go back to that very time and empathize so one can be more historically accurate. This more accurate approach does not help revisionist history which needs mondays data to make the point we need for today.
 
After the resurrection, most accounts are that Jesus was only recognized after some significant interaction with him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus

What seems likely to me, at least assuming both the divinity of Jesus and the propensity for exaggeration, is that the spirit of Jesus was recognized in different people. He was alive in others. Seems to fit with both his message and the general characterization of salvation as welcoming Jesus into one's heart.
 
Another consideration can be seen with an analogy. Young people today may have a hard time understanding how their parents ever got along without a cell phone and/or a computer/internet. How many people, who own cell phones, would dare travel a long distance without one? Even a teen of the past would have done this on any day. This shows the people of the past routinely used extra brain power due to less tech support.

The cell phone is such a moment to moment part of some many young life, that their life without it seems harder to understand. What has happened is the cell phones/mini computer device have become technical prosthesis that extend our capability. But the trade-off, for this fit, is the need to use less underlying brain power in real time. If one lost their phone, the new lower brain power set point, would make one feel much more limited than their actual capacities.

It is like if you had robot legs that can make you run faster than anything natural. Your real legs would need to just dangle there, with the robot legs doing all the work pulling them along. This allows the robot legs not to get resistance. The leg speed looks impression from the outside surface. If you lost the robot legs, your real legs would have atrophied with real running much worse. Tech needs a dumb down brain to work better, so the tech can create the illusion of a smarter brain on the surface. Your brain needs to dangle.

The ancients had to use more of the brain and body's natural ability because they had no tech or science prosthesis. They also had a world that was not defined by science but was constantly in flux. They were a product of natural selection in a time of high mortality rates. Although the explanations of the past did not have the benefit of modern education, these people were much more hardy and needed to use more brain than today, since each day was survival and self reliance.

Jesus was a carpenter, which was not yet wimped out by OSHA regulations, so he would have been a very hardy and strong person able to think on his feet without procedures. The Pharisees used to complain of Jesus being a glutton and drunk. So he was not only strong but build due to sufficient food. The wimpy Jesus is a modern projection.

Not recognizing Jesus would have been expected of a man you knew, who had been beat almost to death, who has recovered in terms of his mind, but is still beat, punctured and bruised into someone who is not quite the same, until you meet him. He still had the holes in his strong hands which used to lift large timbers and swung a heavy hammer for half his young life. The 40 days could have been the time until he died of his stressed condition, never complaining, but always being positive for the sake of his friends and family. The heart of Jesus is often portray and may have been the cause of death. His heart had been clipped by the spear and his heart may not have healed all the way but eventually ruptured. The stories of this expand to give hope to those who would now be hunted like animals and killed in cruel ways by the pagans/atheists.
 
Syne said:
After the resurrection, most accounts are that Jesus was only recognized after some significant interaction with him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus

What seems likely to me, at least assuming both the divinity of Jesus and the propensity for exaggeration, is that the spirit of Jesus was recognized in different people. He was alive in others. Seems to fit with both his message and the general characterization of salvation as welcoming Jesus into one's heart.
Click to expand...

In what way?

What do you mean by - ''the spirit of Jesus''?

jan.
 
Sorcerer said:
Maybe I should have posted this on the religion thread, but I didn't want to upset people there.

Assuming the facts in the story are correct (OK, big assumption), there could be a prosaic explanation of what happened. Jesus was taken off the cross before he was dead, either because his mates bribed the guards, or because the authorities allowed it, due to political pressure or for some other reason. They patched him up and a few days later he was able to get around, but then he died of his wounds.

Does that sound more likely than coming back from the dead?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're trying to take the piss. :)

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
It sounds like you're trying to take the piss. :)

jan.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. If you have a set of facts then there may be more than one explanation. There's no harm in exploring them. Note that I didn't post this on the religion thread so no one should feel offended.
 
Sorcerer said:
No I'm not. If you have a set of facts then there may be more than one explanation. There's no harm in exploring them. Note that I didn't post this on the religion thread so no one should feel offended.
Click to expand...

Offended?

In your dreams!

jan.
 
Sorcerer said:
If people are interested then they can discuss it, as some have. If you don't want to contribute, you are free to leave.
Click to expand...

I feel that my response contributed perfectly, and justly, regarding your take on it. Why would I want to leave?

jan.
 
Sorcerer said:
Calling something stupid is not much of a contribution.
Click to expand...

It is the perfect contribution if what you propose, is indeed stupid.
I'm quite sure that you know it's a stupid explanation, but just wanted some kind of hostile reaction from Christians.

jan said:
I'm glad you're not offended. I'm sensitive to that, since some Christians might take offence to any alternative explanation of that episode.
Click to expand...

It's not an alternative explanation, you're making a mockery of Jesus.
They already have an explanation, and the honest thing to say is that you don't believe, or, agree with it.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
It is the perfect contribution if what you propose, is indeed stupid.
I'm quite sure that you know it's a stupid explanation, but just wanted some kind of hostile reaction from Christians.



It's not an alternative explanation, you're making a mockery of Jesus.
They already have an explanation, and the honest thing to say is that you don't believe, or, agree with it.

jan.
Click to expand...

That's untrue, and you have no basis for saying so. If I'd wanted a reaction from Christians I would have have posted it on the religion thread.

It is a perfectly valid explanation, and others have contributed their own views too.

If Christians are happy with their explanation, then that's fine with me. They can believe what they want.

If I want to get into an argument about my own beliefs I would do so on the correct part of the forum.

I'm actually trying to find out why you're trolling in a particularly negative fashion. This is in the 'science' section and therefore supposed to be for sensible discussion, not meaningless insults. Like I said, if you don't want to contribute to the thread, clear off.

Edit: OK, I just had a look at your profile and I see you're religious. You should have just told me that you're a Christian. That's OK, some of my best friends are Christian.
 
Sorcerer,

That's untrue, and you have no basis for saying so.
Click to expand...

What did you mean by Jesus' ''mates''?
I wasn't aware that he had any ''mates'' in any of the senses that we use the term ''mates''
And what do you mean by ''patched him up''? He was severely beaten and had been pierced through his side with a sword of some kind, with blood gushing out of his side.
What do you think ''his mates'' did? Put a band aid on it (them)?
It's obvious you're being flippant with your remarks.

If I'd wanted a reaction from Christians I would have have posted it on the religion thread.
Click to expand...

So that makes all the difference. Huh?

It is a perfectly valid explanation...
Click to expand...

For you, and people like you? Maybe. But in the real world it's mockery.

If Christians are happy with their explanation, then that's fine with me. They can believe what they want.
Click to expand...

It's not ''their'' explanation, it's ''an'' explanation. The only one.

If I want to get into an argument about my own beliefs I would do so on the correct part of the forum.
Click to expand...

As I said, the only thing you can honestly say is ''i don't believe that account'' or ''I don't agree with it''?
You so-called explanation does not draw any comparison to the original set of accounts, it is naught but mockery.

I'm actually trying to find out why you're trolling in a particularly negative fashion. This is in the 'science' section and therefore supposed to be for sensible discussion, not meaningless insults. Like I said, if you don't want to contribute to the thread, clear off.
Click to expand...

No you're not. You're trying to draw attention to the moderator or others to help you out.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Sorcerer,



What did you mean by Jesus' ''mates''?
I wasn't aware that he had any ''mates'' in any of the senses that we use the term ''mates''
And what do you mean by ''patched him up''? He was severely beaten and had been pierced through his side with a sword of some kind, with blood gushing out of his side.
What do you think ''his mates'' did? Put a band aid on it (them)?
It's obvious you're being flippant with your remarks.



So that makes all the difference. Huh?



For you, and people like you? Maybe. But in the real world it's mockery.



It's not ''their'' explanation, it's ''an'' explanation. The only one.



As I said, the only thing you can honestly say is ''i don't believe that account'' or ''I don't agree with it''?
You so-called explanation does not draw any comparison to the original set of accounts, it is naught but mockery.



No you're not. You're trying to draw attention to the moderator or others to help you out.

jan.
Click to expand...

Clear off. I haven't got time to talk to religionists like you. You're on ignore.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Sorcerer,
What did you mean by Jesus' ''mates''?
I wasn't aware that he had any ''mates'' in any of the senses that we use the term ''mates''
And what do you mean by ''patched him up''? He was severely beaten and had been pierced through his side with a sword of some kind, with blood gushing out of his side.
What do you think ''his mates'' did? Put a band aid on it (them)?
It's obvious you're being flippant with your remarks.
Click to expand...

Even I get that the term mate was used in the sense of friends.so why get so pissy about it? This might be an important part of your belief system, but as it was pointed out earlier, this is a science thread. If you want reaffirmation of your religious beliefs you are in the wrong forum. And all the verbal drama aside, how do you know that a) Jesus actually existed, since there is no proof that one such person actually lived; b) that the blood was gushing, if he had been stuck in his side with a lance it would have been an act of mercy killing by the Roman soldiers (I doubt they would have missed the vital parts, after all, crucification was a common form of punishment.)

So that makes all the difference. Huh?v=
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It shows consideration towards those who cannot handle it if their worldview is challenged.

[Q UOTE]For you, and people like you? Maybe. But in the real world it's mockery. [/QUOTE]

It’s not mockery, it’s a viewpoint different from yours.

It's not ''their'' explanation, it's ''an'' explanation. The only one.
Click to expand...

Again, it may be so for you and those who believe the same things. The rest of us will just continue to ask questions and not be limited by dogma. If you had studied any history you would understand the fallacy of your statement.

As I said, the only thing you can honestly say is ''i don't believe that account'' or ''I don't agree with it''?
You so-called explanation does not draw any comparison to the original set of accounts, it is naught but mockery.
Click to expand...

Sorcerer has a point. If he wanted to debate points of belief, dogma, and/or doctrine he would not do it in a science forum since it does not belong here.

Anyhow, which original account are you referencing here? The Romans did not record anything, and those were people who were very exacting with their recordkeeping. If Jesus actually had existed and if such a figure had been crucified, they would have given it at least a footnote in their histories.

No you're not. You're trying to draw attention to the moderator or others to help you out.

jan.
Click to expand...
And you are whining, and trying to play the victim. So does that make it all better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top