I know some of you believe Jesus never existed at all, but assuming he did exist at least as a mortal man. Could he have simply fainted?
One theory suggests that he didn't die on the cross but fainted or swooned. Some people who experience severe trauma experience "pericardial tamponade" where the sac surrounding the heart fills with fluid muffling the beat and restricting how much blood it can pump to the rest of the body. It doesn't take long for the victim to lose consciousness and appear dead.
The treatment for such a condition begins with relieving pressure on the heart by draining the fluid in the pericardium. Doctors today use a shunt but a spear point with be just as effective.
So he could have been revived later, and his followers would have thought he raised from the dead.
I actually came across this argument in a book written by a deist called "Paradox of Nothingness" by Robert B. Reno Jr. Very thought provoking.
He wasn't so much agreeing with the theory, but more or less outlining it as a possibility. Since there is actually not really evidence to support it. But I personally think it is a very plausible explanation. If you really think what it would be like to experience crucifixion.
I remember living in a residence with engineering students and they talked about some silly hypothetical questions. Would you be able to tether the moon to the Earth? What if the moon was made out of hard cheese? How would Luke Skywalker defend himself against an evil Harry Potter? Would the wand or the lightsaber prove a greater weapon. Some of these questions were pointless and silly...questions only a total nerd would find interesting...while others led to some really interesting conversations on vaguely related topics. They were such geeks.
It's in the spirit of these types of conversation...do I see (and I assume most of us) this hypothetical conversation about a fictional character dying on a cross. I'm sure some med students might have an interesting conversation about how a body deals with the horrors of torture...I guess it depends on how queasy one is about macabre violence and cruelty. I found the conversation about a cheese moon tethered to the earth a far more interesting topic. Apparantly it would either fly away and dissipate or sort of melt and rain down cheese on Earth...which is not a desirably a scenario even if you have a lot of nearly expired dry crackers.
Not really sure what exactly has happened with your original reply, but I'm responding to it anyway based on my email alert.
"I remember living in a residence with engineering students and they talked about some silly hypothetical questions. Would you be able to tether the moon to the Earth? What if the moon was made out of hard cheese? How would Luke Skywalker defend himself against an evil Harry Potter? Would the wand or the lightsaber prove a greater weapon.
In the spirit of these types of conversation...do I see (and I assume most of us) see this hypothetical conversation about a fictional character dying on a cross. As an added extra...I found the conversation about a cheese moon tethered to the earth a far more interesting conversation as I did learn a lot about physics in the process."
Well all I can say to you there is you don't really have any proof that Jesus is a fictional character. I for one think it is possible that he existed (just not as the son of a God). Lack of evidence is not evidence for non-existence. None of us really know if Jesus existed or not, lets not pretend otherwise.
The proposition that was being presented about Jesus the mortal man fainting on the cross is based on reason. Not a random child's game of "What If". The fact of the matter is, crucifixions did actually happen and were performed by the Persians, Carthaginians, Macedonians, and Romans.
Furthermore, most historians do actually argue that Jesus existed as a historical figure (without the miraculous abilities etc). Part of the reasons for this are three non-Christian sources. Jesus is mentioned twice in the works of 1st century Roman historian Josephus and also mentioned in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tacitus. So it seems to me that there is a very good chance that at the very least a historical figure called Jesus could have existed.
Because of this, I think that this theory is at the very least worthy of the merit of taking a look at and considering addressing its proposals.
Lack of evidence is not evidence for non-existence
I see this quote often in the philosophy of science when talking about absolute certainty. I think it is a valuable maxim. The quote is used to attack absolute negative propositions (I am certain the tooth fairy doesn't exist) or in the philosophy of religion to attack absolute atheism (I am absolutely certain that god doesn't exist). Change that certainty to 99.9999% and this quote no longer applies. In other words I find the real life existence of Jesus so unlikely that I don't take it seriously. Until I am presented with reasonable evidence of his real life existence Jesus will be nothing more than a fictional character to me just like the tooth fairy (note I have never claimed that I am absolutely certain that neither exist...I am not).
I agree that crucifixion took place...I don't agree that we should take the crucifixion of fictional Jesus seriously.
There is no evidence that a burning bush ever existed but no one but the most die hard Christians would ever question that. No one has seen a Geenie in the last few centuries as depicted in the Koran but I don't think many will come to defend their hypothetical existence.
Historical Jesus is a difficult subject matter. Biblical historians (including those who are atheist) all tend to agree that he probably existed (note that not even they feel confident enough to say so with certainty). However historians not as well versed in Biblical history who investigate his real life existence using sources other than the bible or biblical related sources find the likelihood of him existing as dubious based on the evidence. As do I. This is why I regard him as a character of fiction and will continue to do so until I am presented with better evidence of his existence.
And so any highly speculative propositions about certain events in Jesus's life will appear to me (and I bet many others on this site) no more worthy of study or investigation or importance than speculation about Harry Potter.
if he didn't perform miracles is he still the Jesus of Nazareth or this a fantasy Jesus scholars have created?
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life? lol I was humming it when I posted this originally haha
Monthy Pyton was awesome
Yeah...Cheer up Brian :-)
If Jesus didn't die on the cross, go to Hell, and then arise from the dead, what's left of Christianity? You're just a Jew, then.
Well actually I'm neither lol I'm just trying to figure out which is the most likely to have happened.
I was not using that form of "you" but rather the one that can be substituted for "one."
If one believes Jesus didn't die on the cross, go to Hell, and then arise from the dead, what's left of Christianity? One is just a Jew, then.