2007-06-25 10:27:19 · 21 answers · asked by ? 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The father is giving a logical argument. If you don't believe me, that's fine but I think he could have been drugged and held by ropes and given a shelf for his feet and taken down and hidden as if he were dead and about to be buried and then revived over time. He would still be considered resurrected even though he didn't die but appeared to be dead.
2007-06-25 13:47:40 · update #1
Great answer amethyst! Robert, if they were crushed by his death, then why weren't they happy when they saw him again?
2007-06-25 14:01:28 · update #2
Pax
As a Gnostic the historical Christ have less importance than our Holy Inner Christ Self.
However, the importance of the crucificion and resurrection and all his life in general, is that he by his life, had showed us the process of self tranfromation, initiation, spiritualisation however you wanna call it.
That the Christic Myth is the vital. We have a path show by Jesus.
H
2007-06-27 14:24:31 · answer #1 · answered by H de O 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Crucifixion meant very large nails piercing the forearm just above the wrist - not through the palms of the hand and another nail through the back of the foot - not through the front of both feet. The infection introduced by this would have produce a fatal septicemia. Without antibiotics, intensive care, and emergency surgery, the wound in the side (John 19:34) would also have had fatal consequences. No-one could have survived this treatment.
2007-06-30 18:10:08 · answer #2 · answered by cheir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He DID!!! His Body Did Not for 3 days, but He Over Came Death, Sin & Hell and Resurrected Himself!!! He then showed Himself Physically in the "Old Body" as Proof Positive to Fulfill the Fathers Plan & Scripture!!! John
2007-06-25 10:43:29 · answer #3 · answered by moosemose 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Impossible. In the case of our Lord, the Gospel of John describes the piercing of Christ's side and the overflowing of blood and water [John 19:34]. Many have assumed that the passage referred to the piercing of the abdomen, and that the water resulted from puncturing the bladder or the presence of ascites (intra-abdominal fluid that can collect as a result of stress or disease).
However, a study of the Greek word for "side" used in the passage is pleura, which clearly refers to the chest rather than the abdomen. Our lungs and the walls of the internal chest cavity are lined with a thin, clear membrane called the "pleural lining." Thus it seems probable that the spear wound was to one side of the chest wall. Tradition has depicted the right side, although John is not specific. Medically speaking, this would support the idea of the flow "blood and water ..." from Christ's side since the spear would first puncture the lung and allow the accumulated water, probably due to pulmonary edema, to flow out.
In congestive heart failure caused by stress, the right side of the heart enlarges and results in fluid collecting in the lungs (pulmonary edema) and pericardium. As the spear continued through the lung, it would next puncture the pericardium (sac around the heart) allowing more "water" to drain out of the wound. Finally, the enlarged right ventricle of the heart would be punctured causing a large flow of blood from the wound.
Thus the water probably represents clear fluid from the lungs and pericardial sac, and the blood is from a direct puncture of the right side of the heart.
2007-06-25 10:31:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
This is a question that has been explored tons of times. there is a good book out called "evidence that demands a verdict" it is written by a lawyer as he looked at the historical evidence for the crucifiction.
If you are highly antagonistic to Christianity then you could be too biased to really explore the answers.
The truth is that the Romans and Jewish leaders would have wanted to find the body or person of Jesus as the group that followed him grew exponentialy after the death and resurection.
The apostles were broken men, they expected that Jesus would restore the kingdom of Israel, they did not expect his death and were completly devestated.
2007-06-25 10:33:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
How?
I mean, how could it possibly ever be discovered?
Secondly, this is not an open question. It is a logical impossibility for Jesus to have survived. There's tons of Christian literature on this.
But, speaking purely hypothetically, as Saint Paul said, if Christ did not die and rise again, the Christian faith is in vain.
2007-06-25 10:34:43 · answer #6 · answered by Oogglebooggle 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is no way that Jesus could of "survived" the crucifixion. He was already already dying when He was tortured, he lost so much blood. And when he was put up on the cross, He lost even more blood.
When He said that He was thirsty, that had to do with the large amount of blood He lost. No one could survive that amount of blood loss that he had.
He gave up His spirit to His father in Heaven, which meant that He died.
2007-06-25 10:39:32 · answer #7 · answered by julie 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just as Jesus Christs birth was a mystery, his end to this world was remained a mystery. Holy Quran revealed the truth. Jesus was never crucified by raised up to the heaven.
2007-06-25 10:35:08 · answer #8 · answered by Ismail Eliat 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Let's see Jesus was crucified then resurrected so I guess you could say he survived the Crucifixion.
2007-06-25 10:33:07 · answer #9 · answered by Mariah 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cant discover something that isnt fact. He was crucified, died and was buried...on the 3rd day he rose again and ascended to Heaven.
2007-06-25 10:31:34 · answer #10 · answered by Rev. Matthew 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋