The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

Do we have documented evidence of anyone surviving a Crucifixion in the 1st Century?

"I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.” (Flavius Josephus, Vita, IV, 75)

The above quote from the Jewish historian Josephus is very significant ; Crucifixion did not always result in death and it was possible for people in the 1st Century to survive Crucifixion.

But what happened to Jesus Christ? We are fortunate to live in modern times, when science and the field of medicine lend us powerful tools of analysis, as well as a language of medical and scientific terminology.
These things even allow us to determine what may have occurred physiologically to Jesus Christ during and, assuming he survived the crucifixion, even after his ordeal on the cross.

www.tombofjesus.com...

As seen on Discovery channel...this website contains the claims of his Kashmir exile. There are excellent sources, 10 researchers listed, cross-referenced information to scrolls especially the "Life of St Issa" Scrolls, photos, and very reasonable conclusions indicating this may be his actual actual tomb. Very possibly the other "tombs" discovered in the Holy Land are fraudulent, would make sense if they wanted people to think he HAD died and not sent troops to find him (which they would have done).

Everyone knows we walk on the paths of righeousness and dwell in the House of the Lord as we make Heaven Upon the Earth that respects all natural laws and provides ultimate truth:

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest [2] my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

Other chose Hell because they present a Fabel the Jesus died, going outside the natural laws of God, and they worship the dead and chose Hell as their eternity

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
Other chose Hell because they present a Fabel the Jesus died, going outside the natural laws of God, and they worship the dead and chose Hell as their eternity

Except they say Jesus isn't dead. Also, how would that be choosing hell? It's not like they had a choice before them that was clear cut. But, if that's how this god sees things, screw him.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Except they say Jesus isn't dead. Also, how would that be choosing hell? It's not like they had a choice before them that was clear cut. But, if that's how this god sees things, screw him.

edit on 4-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

They say he died. Bringing the dead back to life is black magic and Satan. They violate the Laws of Nature and God.

reply to post by Hydroman


Let me look for some of the references. If not online, I'll type what's in Haissnan's book out by hand...
brb
As far as I can tell from memory, though, after he was improved enough to unwrap, the shroud was left there and given (by a disciple or someone?) to a follower, who stole it away and hid it. I'm not sure whether that's been officially established or not (certainly NOT by the Vatican PR people)...but I'll check.
As for it causing miracles? I don't see why it would. It's the bloodied remnant of a shroud an injured man was wrapped within. The miracle was that he survived, like Magnum said. One would think that every crucifix would cause miracles, too, just by existing. But they don't.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by Hydroman
Except they say Jesus isn't dead. Also, how would that be choosing hell? It's not like they had a choice before them that was clear cut. But, if that's how this god sees things, screw him.

edit on 4-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

They say he died. Bringing the dead back to life is black magic and Satan. They violate the Laws of Nature and God.

When Jesus raised Lazarus, was that Satan?

Originally posted by wildtimes
As for it causing miracles? I don't see why it would. It's the bloodied remnant of a shroud an injured man was wrapped within. The miracle was that he survived, like Magnum said. One would think that every crucifix would cause miracles, too, just by existing. But they don't.

Well, I'm going by the christian perspective of this. If that is indeed the blood of Jesus, who they say is the Son of God, and is also God at the same time, then you'd think that his blood would have some kind of power.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by Hydroman
Except they say Jesus isn't dead. Also, how would that be choosing hell? It's not like they had a choice before them that was clear cut. But, if that's how this god sees things, screw him.

edit on 4-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

They say he died. Bringing the dead back to life is black magic and Satan. They violate the Laws of Nature and God.

When Jesus raised Lazarus, was that Satan?

No. Lazarus was a Leper and got close to death. His was also a healing thing as lots of their medicines were teatments for Leperosy. He was given up for dead due to his illness, yet still clung to life.

Jesus rescued his pal from certain death, not actual death. Jesus was the healer, as were all the Essene.

I think Myrrh was one of the best treatments of Leporacy also.

www.scentofjerusalem.com...

Medicinal Action and Uses: Myrrh has been one of the most desired and sought after items in the world even before the baby Jesus received Myrrh as a gift, over 2000 years ago. The bible mentions it over 22 times, and it was used as incense in religious rituals.

The Egyptians believed in its healing powers: they burned Myrrh every day as part of their worshipping rituals. In the Greek culture when soldiers went to battle is was an essential part of their combat gear because of myrrh's extremely high antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties. It was used to clean wounds and to prevent infection. It was also used to prevent the spread of gangrene in already infected parts of the body.

------

It was used in embalming, as a cure for cancer, leprosy, and syphilis. Myrrh, mixed with coriander and honey, was used to treat herpes. It was used as an anti-infectous, anti-inflammatory, antiseptic, astringent and as a tonic.

Myrrh was also used as incense in the 1st temple, but in the second was not.

But Myrrh was the prime medicine Jesus used to heal folks and the source of his miracles of healing people.


Leprosy sounds a lot like what MIRSA is today. Leprosy causes these horrid smelling odors due to rotting flesh and will slowly kill the person if left untreated. After they pass out, they are going to look awful and smell worse and it will take a while before they actually officially die.

www.shroud.com...
The acronyms mean:
TS the shroud
MST man in the shroud

I'm going to take the liberty of translating this translation a little better into English (I'm fluent in Spanish and see where the words are mixed around)

A probabilistic model, developed by the same authors in another work, was applied to 100 statements
resulting from the research analyses done to date out on the Shroud of Turin.

They established three different possible alternatives regarding the origin of the TS:

the alternative A (authentic) affirms that the TS wrapped Jesus’s body, AUTHENTIC

the alternative F (false) affirms that the TS has a medieval origin, FAKE

while the alternative N (not authentic, but neither a medieval false) considers all the other possible origins, miracle not excluded. NOT AUTHENTIC BUT NOT FAKE EITHER - INCONCLUSIVE

To each statement they assigned 7 coefficients of which the first three refer to the probability that the alternative A, F or N happened, the last three refer to the correspondent uncertainties in the assignment of the probabilities and at last a value assigned in relation to the importance of the statement.

The 700 coefficients assigned by the authors to the 100 statements have been inserted in the probabilistic
model to define the reliability degree of the three different alternatives.

(This is scientific lingo about probability stuff. I had to be hand-held getting through my statistics course, but that's what they're establishing: their criteria and methodology.)

It results that the TS is authentic with a probability of 100% and a corresponding uncertainty equivalent to
10[to the minus]-83rd power
; the alternative F has a probability of 0% and a corresponding uncertainty equivalent to 10 to the -183rd power
, the alternative N has a probability of 0% and a corresponding uncertainty equivalent to 10 to the -83rd power

That is the same as stating that it is most probable to let come out for 52 times running the same number at the roulette game rather than affirming that the TS is not authentic.**
A subsequent development of this work is that to let assign the probabilistic coefficients of the same statements to other researchers and therefore to compare the results obtained.

The original was in Italian, so the syntax is a bit awkward in the translation (Imagine that!? A faulty translation! WTH? :lol
**It is more likely that a roulette wheel spun 52 times will land on the same number every time than it is likley to DISPROVE it is authentic.
Right? Sheesh.
I think that's what it's saying.

They did a bunch of studies over the decades, and it still isn't solved. I.e. science can't figure it out. But there seems a possibility that a blast of radiation or energy of some kind had an affect on the image, and that the discolorations are consistent with the healing herbs and ointments that would have been used.

To me, that's pretty mystifying...miraculous enough indeed ... that he was revived WHILE IN THE SHROUD and bleeding from his wounds.

NOT.

DEAD.

I hope in my lifetime they can figure it out. Cool stuff. I really, really want to know. Maybe they'll even open that tomb...

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
No. Lazarus was a Leper and got close to death. His was also a healing thing as lots of their medicines were teatments for Leperosy. He was given up for dead due to his illness, yet still clung to life.

Jesus rescued his pal from certain death, not actual death. Jesus was the healer, as were all the Essene.

I think Myrrh was one of the best treatments of Leporacy also.

The bible says that he was dead in the tomb for 4 days. But you think he just happened to be well when Jesus told him to rise and come forth?

Originally posted by wildtimes
(I'm fluent in Spanish and see where the words are mixed around)

Donde aprediste Espanol? Yo vivi in Espana por un ano y media. Vivi en Santander y Barcelona. Estuve trabajano en un centro de toxicomanos. Llevo un monton de tiempo sin hablar espanol, pues estoy un poco mal de hablar la idioma.

Originally posted by wildtimes

A probabilistic model, developed by the same authors in another work, was applied to 100 statements
resulting from the research analyses done to date out on the Shroud of Turin.

They established three different possible alternatives regarding the origin of the TS:

the alternative A (authentic) affirms that the TS wrapped Jesus’s body,

the alternative F (false) affirms that the TS has a medieval origin,

while the alternative N (not authentic, but neither a medieval false) considers all the other possible origins, miracle not excluded.

To each statement they assigned 7 coefficients of which the first three refer to the probability that the
alternative A, F or N happened, the last three refer to the correspondent uncertainties in the assignment of
the probabilities and at last a value assigned in relation to the importance of the statement.

The 700 coefficients assigned by the authors to the 100 statements have been inserted in the probabilistic
model to define the reliability degree of the three different alternatives.

It results that the TS is authentic with a probability of 100% and a corresponding uncertainty equivalent to
10[to the minus]-83rd power
; the alternative F has a probability of 0% and a corresponding uncertainty equivalent to 10 to the -183rd power
, the alternative N has a probability of 0% and a corresponding uncertainty equivalent to 10 to the -83rd power

That is the same as stating that it is most probable to let come out for 52 times running the same number at the roulette game rather than affirming that the TS is not authentic.**
A subsequent development of this work is that to let assign the probabilistic coefficients of the same statements to other researchers and therefore to compare the results obtained.

Over my head....

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Iason321
God mocks stupidity,

He doesn't appreciate being mocked.

Do you speak on his behalf? Can he not speak and take up for himself? Does he need you to do it?

"And to Yeshua, The Mediator of The New Covenant, and to the sprinkling of blood, which speaks better than that of Abel." Hebrews 12:24

reply to post by Hydroman


hehe..en escuela, y luego en trabajando por cinquenta -- EDIT No, no, quince! -- anos con la gente. I'm jealous that you were in Spain! I've been to Mexico.
Last time I tried to converse here on ATS in Spanish I was reminded by a mod to SPEAK ENGLISH.

But if you want, we can practice our spanish in u2u's (I think?). Mine was considered very good by my coworkers and clients (mistook me for an Argentinian...) I'm out of practice too.

Yeah, so the study says that the likelihood of it being a FAKE is the same as the likelihood of a roulette wheel landing on the same number 52 times in a row.
Sounds to me like they're saying it's NOT A FAKE. But, they still haven't concluded exactly how the entire image was "created" by the circumstances.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Iason321
“Correct a mocker and you make an enemy... Do not rebuke the mocker, he would only hate you..

Did you actually read that?

NVM, Wild beat me to it. But guess what, I guess we're like Satan and we're using scripture against you again?

Correcting someone isn't the same as rebuke. Those are not the same Hebrew words.

One means to inform/instruct (like a teacher). The other means to judge/chasten (like a judge).

Correct: "yacar" in Hebrew
Rebuke: "yakach" in Hebrew

Similar spellings and sound, different connotations.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
No. Lazarus was a Leper and got close to death. His was also a healing thing as lots of their medicines were teatments for Leperosy. He was given up for dead due to his illness, yet still clung to life.

Jesus rescued his pal from certain death, not actual death. Jesus was the healer, as were all the Essene.

I think Myrrh was one of the best treatments of Leporacy also.

The bible says that he was dead in the tomb for 4 days. But you think he just happened to be well when Jesus told him to rise and come forth?

edit on 4-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

They more than likely used the Myrrh thing on Lazarus in the tomb also. Myrrh appears to very potent treatment for the skin eating effects of Leprosy.

Leprosy smells terrible and looks worse, so the person that passes out looks dead and rotted. But like issues of MIRSA today, which also consumes flesh, it takes a long time to die from it, but if left untreated you will.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"And to Yeshua, The Mediator of The New Covenant, and to the sprinkling of blood, which speaks better than that of Abel." Hebrews 12:24

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here...

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by Hydroman
Except they say Jesus isn't dead. Also, how would that be choosing hell? It's not like they had a choice before them that was clear cut. But, if that's how this god sees things, screw him.

edit on 4-5-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)

They say he died. Bringing the dead back to life is black magic and Satan. They violate the Laws of Nature and God.

When Jesus raised Lazarus, was that Satan?

Careful, don't lead him into committing the only unforgivable sin.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Correcting someone isn't the same as rebuke.

He was neither CORRECTING nor REBUKING. He was MOCKING, and doing so rudely. Not okay. Not. Okay. And especially to say it to YOU in PUBLIC about someone else who is not online to defend themselves. Bad manners, and against T&C, and he needs to be CORRECTED.

Christ would have disapproved, and you BOTH know it.

I'm talking about Proverbs 9:7 and 9:8. One says not to correct a mocker, and the other says to rebuke a mocker. Hydroman claimed a contradiction and I pointed out there are two different Hebrew words with different connotations/definitions.

It's also just as much against the T&C to "mini-mod" within a thread if you want to get down to brass tacks. My suggestion after being here for almost 5 years to to alert the mods to any issues.