The crucifiction

[claymore]

We know that Jesus was crucified, but did he physically die on the cross like the bible would have us believe?

[sandyRoe]

He did. Died and was buried, but on the 3rd day he rose again and ascended into heaven where he sits at the right hand of God.

[jomifl]

Since trained doctors sometimes have difficulty determining whether someone is alive or dead when they can examine them, I think it would be a brave or foolish person who could say exactly when or where jesus died.

[naomi24]

There is no historical evidence to confirm he actually existed, but that aside, personally I think he did and the biblical accounts lead me to believe he survived the crucifixion.

[keyplus90]

I believe that he was not crucified. But that is my Islamic belief and this question is not about that aspect.

Even according to the bible Jesus did not die on the cross and therefore was never resurrected. And that is the reason why I call it crucifiction as well.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, //Even according to the bible Jesus did not die on the cross and therefore was never resurrected. //

That isn't true at all. Where on earth do you get your information about the bible from? Practically everything you offer here is wrong.

[Zabadak]

I suspect most people who were crucified died. Generally, that's what crucifixion was for.

[chakka35]

Like naomi I have my doubts about whether Jesus existed at all. Putting that aside, it is for those who claim that he died on the cross to tell us what he died of.

Crucifixion was designed to be a slow lingering death, sometimes lasting days. Taken down after only a few hours Jesus would have had a sore back from the scourging, holes in his feet and wrists and aching muscles, nothing life-threatening. A day or so of TLC from Joseph of A. and Nicodemus with their bandages and ointments would have got him on his feet with help.

"...they saw he was dead...." is hardly a clinical assessment.

[andy-hughes]

Crucifixtion was the common criminals' death in Roman Palastine. Methods vary, including providing a wooden block for the prisoner to stand on, to take the weight off his arms and hands.

If th crucifixion took place, it is possible, though unlikely, that Jesus survived it. The scourging he received first would result in serious weakening and blood loss, hastening the death of even a relatively fit young man, which we are told he was.

[boxtops]

There are many theories about this, all of them plausible to those of us who like to research comparative religions. Something I was reading recently suggests that it wasn't Jesus but a substitute criminal who was crucified, which explains how He could appear in the garden afterwards - then go into exile for the rest of his natural life.

[crisgal]

i find this post very interesting. As an atheisit who believes jesus exsited!

Chakka, so theoretically, is it possible that Jesus wasn't actually dead when taken fron the cross? Could he have survived those wounds and that is why he was seen again? Not ressurected, but more, well, recovered?

[naomi24]

Chakka, just to clarify, although there's no proof either way I think Jesus probably existed. Having said that, despite the scourging he is reputed to have received prior to the crucifixion, I think it's highly likely he survived. In fact the bible tells us that Pilate was surprised he had 'died' so quickly.

[naomi24]

crisgal, yes, yes and yes - it is all possible.

[Zabadak]

Naomi: I think "highly likely" is on the optimistic side - though many thanks for contributing using the existing documents, since there isn't anything else of any significance in this context.
There was also reputed to be a lance stroke to the region of the heart, which must have stung a bit, and the urgency of getting the executions completed before the Festival celebrations starting at sundown. So yes, possible, but I would incline to "highly unlikely."
I also " a day or so of TLC" after a Roman flogging might not have been enough for even a partial recovery!

[Zabadak]

Last para: "I also think a day or so..." Sorry, dodgy proof reading before posting 8-)

[sandyRoe]

His disciples wouldn't have buried him if he wasn't dead. But, Alleluia! on the 3rd day he rose again.

[naomi24]

Zabadak, you're thanking me for using existing documents? How odd. And odder still, since this isn't your question, why are you thanking me for contributing at all?

I do think it's 'highly likely' he survived, but I believe I made it clear that is a matter of personal opinion.

And where on earth did you get the idea that the 'lance stroke' was in the region of the heart? The lance pierced his side.

Incidentally, surprisingly we're told the lance wound bled, which in itself is highly suspicious, since dead bodies don't bleed.

Sandy, :o)

[Zabadak]

Naomi - I'm not point scoring, but it's quite common to see people simply dismissing the NT documents as valueless because they are "faith documents".
Geometry suggests an upward stroke to the side would probably have penetrated the heart region, and the lance wound released both "water and blood", consistent with a release of collected fluid from the cardio-thoracic region under gravity rather than under pressure form a still-living heart. Curiously, the "witness" in the gospel of John was more insistent on the water and blood than on any of he other details, though conceivably there may have been mythic or theological reason for the observation.

[naomi24]

Zabadak, you're making it up again. The 'witness' was no more insistent on the water and blood than on any other aspect of the event. He simply related the story. I think it far more likely that 'John' overlooked, or was unaware of, the changes that occur to a body upon death, and made the mistake of adding that bit in order to fulfil the old prophecy - just as many of the other texts were changed (or indeed written) in order to fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Additionally, you make the spurious claim that the lance stroke was in the region of the heart when as far as I'm aware (without checking), we don't know which side was pierced, and we have no idea of precisely where the blade entered the body, or at what angle. Your theory is purely surmise.

By the way, I never dismiss documents just because they're faith based. I believe people who do that are making a huge mistake.