On the physical death of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous]

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-the-physical-death-of-Jesus-Christ.-Edwards-Gabel/514fde75cfd5295c06796f78458c86efe09a75e8

Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross, and death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia.

Very thought provoking.

[Anonymous]

This reads like you think it's some kind of gotcha. Like it's evidence for one side or the other. Except I don't know which side you think it's evidence for.

I have never heard anyone argue that Jesus's death on the cross was in dispute. The part that's in dispute is whether he stayed dead, or rose from the dead.

[Anonymous]

I mean, thousands of people died on the cross. This and the cause of death are hardly unique.

[Anonymous]

The paper was written 40 years ago.

Here’s what a Harvard doctor said about it:

“ The article on the physical death of Jesus of Nazareth1 missed the mark: one simply cannot do an autopsy without a corpse.Even if the New Testament, upon which the authors relied principally for "facts," were historical, it is not unanimous in saying that Jesus was crucified. The Book of Acts, which some scholars consider more ancient than the Gospels, says that Jesus was hanged from a tree.2 Whether Jesus died during the ordeal is not a new question; there was a period spanning the early Middle Ages when the Church said Jesus did not die, not even physically.I find the authors' use of the term "the Jews" too general, too vague, and too liable to be used for mischief, as it has so often been used in the past 2,000 years. Which Jews did the authors have in mind? Surely not Jesus' original followers.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/404287

[Anonymous]

This thread disappointed me. I read OP yesterday. Came back. Had hoped for discussion of the physical mechanics of crucifixion. Kind of awful they did that routinely. Danerys in GoT did it too.

HOW COME nobody got into the asphyxiatiin techniques, various ways of nailing feet to suffocate person, how they must have evolved technique?

[jsteele]

Folks, this forum is extremely frustrating from the perspective of a moderator. I just deleted 4 full pages of posts that were off-topic. I also blocked the IP addresses of two posters. The original post was about the medical diagnosis of Jesus' death. If you do not believe in Jesus, then you really have no business in this thread because you have nothing to contribute to the topic. Yes, I know that there are a couple of atheists who have a religious fervor to convert everyone, but this is not the thread for it.

Please report off-topic posts as soon as you can in order to keep threads on topic. I would rather delete one post than 4 pages of them. If your position about a topic is that the fundamental assumptions are wrong, you probably should skip the thread.

[Anonymous]

Key Medical Factors in the Death of Jesus:

Hypovolemic Shock: The severe scourging, carrying the cross, and crucifixion injuries led to immense blood loss and dehydration, causing a dramatic drop in blood pressure.

Exhaustion Asphyxia: To breathe, Jesus had to push up on his nailed feet, which caused extreme exhaustion of the respiratory muscles, leading to asphyxiation.

Cardiac Factors: Some medical theories point to potential cardiac rupture or rapid arrhythmia due to severe trauma, as evidenced by the sudden outflow of "blood and water" (pericardial/pleural fluid) when his side was pierced.

Physical Trauma: Dislocated shoulders/elbows, intense nerve damage from nails, and deep lacerations from scourging contributed to the traumatic shock.


A Roman spear wound to the chest, producing "blood and water," was deemed evidence of death by a spear-induced cardiac injury or pre-existing fluid accumulation.

Just horrific.

[Anonymous]

Therefore, the specialists who are well acquainted with the medical and/or historical details perhaps affirm Jesus’ death by crucifixion at least in part because they recognize that they are on the horns of a dilemma here. The challenge is either to explain Jesus’ health immediately afterwards in other terms or to deny the solid historical convictions of his early followers that he was raised from the dead—convictions that fueled their exceptionally well-attested message, as stated by Ehrman. Hence, death by crucifixion, especially when there are no known exceptions to the complete process despite dozens of historical reports, is the better diagnosis. The question is, then, based on the historical information available, what do medical specialists believe to be Jesus’ cause of death?


https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8545147/#:~:text=Once%20nailed%20to%20the%20cross,Edwards%20et%20al.%20Bailes%20wrote:

^^^ I haven’t read this entire article, but will do so this evening. It seems there is more information on this written by medical professionals. So very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This reads like you think it's some kind of gotcha. Like it's evidence for one side or the other. Except I don't know which side you think it's evidence for.

I have never heard anyone argue that Jesus's death on the cross was in dispute. The part that's in dispute is whether he stayed dead, or rose from the dead.

Ok, agreed. But this isn’t about that. If you want to discuss your opinion about Jesus rising from the dead or not, make a post for that separate discussion.

[Anonymous]

What is shocking but interesting is this was a well established form of execution. And they cane up with it without modern anatomy. Was it trial and error to see what happened, develop refined procedures?

I wonder if it was thought to be a deterrent to unlawful acts. Certainly in England drawing and quartering and burning at the stake were feared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is shocking but interesting is this was a well established form of execution. And they cane up with it without modern anatomy. Was it trial and error to see what happened, develop refined procedures?

I wonder if it was thought to be a deterrent to unlawful acts. Certainly in England drawing and quartering and burning at the stake were feared.

The Romans seemed to have the most brutal forms of punishment and execution and that’s saying a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is shocking but interesting is this was a well established form of execution. And they cane up with it without modern anatomy. Was it trial and error to see what happened, develop refined procedures?

I wonder if it was thought to be a deterrent to unlawful acts. Certainly in England drawing and quartering and burning at the stake were feared.

Most likely. You have to remember the Roman Empire was trying to be cohesive at the time but many of the governed were from different backgrounds. Thats how they ended up speaking multiple languages similar to United States where half the country doesn’t speak English as a first language but documents are recorded in English. For them it was Greek and Latin. Anyway, to your point, yes crucifixion was a punishment used primarily on non Romans, traitors and slaves and serious criminals at the time. I presume to keep people in line and ensure against uprisings otherwise it would’ve applied equally to their own people.

So effective as a deterrent that early Christians fled Jerusalem, many ended up in Turkey and Syria. Some of the original disciples scattered after the Pentecost, one went as far as India, but most we’re still eventually martyred in some form. It was a dangerous time to assert that anyone other than deities from the ruling family was the “Son of God”. This is why Peter originally denied Christ.

Later on, their origins from within the empire are why Peter from Galilee was also crucified and Paul from Rome was beheaded for their crimes supporting Christianity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is shocking but interesting is this was a well established form of execution. And they cane up with it without modern anatomy. Was it trial and error to see what happened, develop refined procedures?

I wonder if it was thought to be a deterrent to unlawful acts. Certainly in England drawing and quartering and burning at the stake were feared.

Romans had a very brutal culture. They didn’t spare their own, to wit:

Decimation was a brutal Roman military discipline where one in every ten soldiers in a mutinous or cowardly unit was executed by their comrades. Originating from the Latin decimare (removing a tenth), it is now commonly used to mean destroying or harming a large portion of something.

Roman Soldiers were divided into groups of ten. Lots were drawn, and the loser was killed by the other nine, often by stoning or beating.

Decimato was used to enforce discipline in the Roman army for cowardice, mutiny, or desertion. It was considered the most severe punishment, meant to terrify the remaining ninety percent into obedience. A notable, albeit debated, example is the Theban Legion, which supposedly suffered decimation twice for refusing to persecute Christians.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/decimate-2018-05-07


Also, if you don’t want to read very disturbing and distressing vignettes concerned humanity, do not read about how Romans dealt with criminals, Christians, etc. It’s very difficult to read. Romans of that era had absolutely no regard or respect for human life. It was a shockingly terrible time.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Folks, this forum is extremely frustrating from the perspective of a moderator. I just deleted 4 full pages of posts that were off-topic. I also blocked the IP addresses of two posters. The original post was about the medical diagnosis of Jesus' death. If you do not believe in Jesus, then you really have no business in this thread because you have nothing to contribute to the topic. Yes, I know that there are a couple of atheists who have a religious fervor to convert everyone, but this is not the thread for it.

Please report off-topic posts as soon as you can in order to keep threads on topic. I would rather delete one post than 4 pages of them. If your position about a topic is that the fundamental assumptions are wrong, you probably should skip the thread.

Thank you.

Here is the abstract:

The death of Jesus Christ remains a pivotal moment in world history and a symbol of love, mercy, and courage across the globe. Yet for centuries, the manner of Jesus’ death has remained a subject of controversy in academic and medical circles. Forensic pathologists and clinicians have argued for several hypotheses concerning Jesus’ death, including pulmonary embolism, cardiac rupture, suspension trauma, asphyxiation, fatal stab wound, and shock. This article surveys a broad range of medical and other specialist views regarding Jesus’ experience on the cross, concluding that asphyxiation or asphyxiation-dominant theories have emerged as the consensus position regarding the cause of Jesus’ death. Two features of this article are significant. First, it provides a rich resource of different medical opinions regarding the effects of Jesus’ crucifixion. Second, and more importantly, the survey results show that, perhaps less similar to crucifixion in general, there is a growing consensus regarding Jesus’ cause of death by medical professionals. A table maps these results, summarizing for those in the medical field as well as historians and theologians what medical professionals consider to be the cause of Jesus’ death.
Keywords: Ancient world, asphyxiation, crucifixion, Jesus Christ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is shocking but interesting is this was a well established form of execution. And they cane up with it without modern anatomy. Was it trial and error to see what happened, develop refined procedures?

I wonder if it was thought to be a deterrent to unlawful acts. Certainly in England drawing and quartering and burning at the stake were feared.

Most likely. You have to remember the Roman Empire was trying to be cohesive at the time but many of the governed were from different backgrounds. Thats how they ended up speaking multiple languages similar to United States where half the country doesn’t speak English as a first language but documents are recorded in English. For them it was Greek and Latin. Anyway, to your point, yes crucifixion was a punishment used primarily on non Romans, traitors and slaves and serious criminals at the time. I presume to keep people in line and ensure against uprisings otherwise it would’ve applied equally to their own people.

So effective as a deterrent that early Christians fled Jerusalem, many ended up in Turkey and Syria. Some of the original disciples scattered after the Pentecost, one went as far as India, but most we’re still eventually martyred in some form. It was a dangerous time to assert that anyone other than deities from the ruling family was the “Son of God”. This is why Peter originally denied Christ.

Later on, their origins from within the empire are why Peter from Galilee was also crucified and Paul from Rome was beheaded for their crimes supporting Christianity

Wow no idea they went so far. India!