The Crucifixion: A Medical Perspective

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He told Pilate His Kingdom is "not of this world". Only Kings claim to have Kingdoms. You're soo off scripturally it's pathetic. And if you knew a shred about the ordination of priests from the OT you'd understand the baptism by John in the Jordan river when Christ turned 30 and how that was necessary to "fulfill all righteousness".

It looks like you misunderstood my post.
I meant he did not say he was a priest.
I was not saying anything about the "king" part.
But you are going into the "priest" thing in a way that makes no sense, which apparently is ok with you, since you can just blame the lack of being able to make sense of it on the reader, and so do not have to explain it, and it can just act as a slam against anyone who dares question your gift of prophecy.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Stop right there, another member said that. I know full well The Passion is extremely Catholic in nature.

I'm glad you do know that full well...
and while the post was made in a reply to your post,
it was not specifically to YOU I was talking.

I was even very careful not to say YOU....in any part of it. EDIT TO CLARIFY: "it" being that statement containing the movie reference.

But maybe you, NuT, actually did stop right there, got all defensive and huffy, and quit reading. I don't know.
Without reading the entire post (which was PART of my entire PREMISE in that POST in your OP about JESUS), you will not have really got the message.

That is a shame. You missed the "thanks to everyone".

That doctor is only ONE modern medical doctor who is talking about the crucifixion of someone 2000 years ago in terms of his understanding of Western Medicine.
He is not an Essene Master who knows the methods that Jesus' people used (who were at the time the BEST medical practitioners around; a widely established fact), nor are you, NuT, being in the least reasonable about their intelligence, abilities, knowledge, and theories.

YOU DON'T KNOW how it happened. That doctor doesn't know, either.
He wasn't there. I also have never been able to establish your (NuT's) source for this supposed "guts hanging out of his side,", "Stabbed through the heart", "broken legs" embellishment, and "beaten with a cat of nine tails with barbs on the ends" and all that other MADE UP STUFF that has astonished me...

But of course you wouldn't bother to read the posts from people who annoy you with asking "why do you think that?"

Or the ex-texts that are sourced to reviews of the movie by theologians, which, --- regardless of where your ideas about what they did to him come from --- nevertheless dispute the notion that he was "scourged" with anything but a REED.

So, if not from the movie, pray tell us...where did you come up with this highly exaggerated version of what they did?

Because in all my born days I had NEVER heard anything as sadistic and brutal as what you keep insisting happened, EXCEPT from discovering the link to that movie, which I didn't see, and don't want to, because it's Hollywood, and Mr Gibson once again playing the tortured martyr that he has done so well since Mad Max, Braveheart, The Patriot, etc. That's his favorite thing.

Which are all archetype tragic heroes . Classic. Just like all the myths and legends from all times about real men who become later revered...Hercules, King Arthur, William Wallace, Wyatt Earp, Buddha, Krishna, Achilles...all of them!!! It's formula stuff, man, could be called melodrama, very easily. That doesn't make the fables and stories actual literal history, dude. It just doesn't.

reply to post by wildtimes

YOU DON'T KNOW how it happened. That doctor doesn't know, either.
He wasn't there. I also have never been able to establish your (NuT's) source for this supposed "guts hanging out of his side,", "Stabbed through the heart", "broken legs" embellishment, and "beaten with a cat of nine tails with barbs on the ends" and all that other MADE UP STUFF that has astonished me...

Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution:

Scourging.

The spear into the chest cavity was standard Roman protocol for removal of a corpse from a cross for burial by family.

And the cat and nine tails was called a "flagellum", it was the piece of equipment used for the mandated scourging before execution. First the muscles were softened with reeds, then the scourging.

This is all matter of historical record of Roman Law outside of Biblical accounts. They had laws and protocols for execution just as we do for capital offense today.

Roman history records standard protocol for crucifixion:

1 Commanding officer, in charge over 4 elite Roman soldiers who were commissioned to guard the cross. Since Jesus was crucified with two others, this would ensure that no less than 15 Roman soldiers were present as His crucifixion… a fact easy to accept given the Roman Cohort (600-1,000 soldiers) came to the garden to arrest Him only 3 hours previous to His crucifixion. These 4 soldiers each had to confirm death with each one required to “sign off” the official death declaration to their commanding officer, who, in turn, corroborated the evidence of death. One should note that these soldiers were commissioned under threat of death for failure to perform their charged duties.

Crucifixion of Jesus

reply to post by jmdewey60


Go find the process for ordination of priests from the OT.

reply to post by jmdewey60

and it can just act as a slam against anyone who dares question your gift of prophecy.

Question all you want to. Look over the OT, see if that ever happened to Elijah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or the others. They spent all their time being hated, mocked, in jail, or killed. The false prophets were applauded and loved by the masses. God didn't consult with you before my calling, and He won't consult with you for when it ends.

Again, this thread is NOT about me, get over it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

They had laws and protocols for execution just as we do for capital offense today.

Fine. So?

That does nothing to dispute the Gospel accounts that clearly show that the centurion in charge was "afraid" of the earthquake, red fog, whatever....
and was sympathetic to the man's plight. He was the only one in charge. The messenger from Pilate wanted to know if he was dead. It was getting close to dark: curfew. Passover law.

The centurion had ALREADY decided NOT to break his legs. So he clearly felt the situation dictated making an executive decision. He was the boots on the ground in charge......and supposedly he was convinced that Christ was special, and felt sorry for the mourners, and showed some compassion and fear as well (not of Pilate, but of something more powerful than Pilate).

The scriptural evidence in the Bible -- those few accounts by M, M, L, and J, do not sync completely. None of them were eyewitnesses. NONE of them.

Except for John, they say the centurion was sympathetic:

In the synoptic accounts, the centurion in charge, witnessing these events, says: "Truly this was the Son of God!"[Mt. 27:54] or "Truly this man was the Son of God!"[Mk. 15:39] or "Certainly this man was innocent!"[Lk. 23:47]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by wildtimes

and was sympathetic to the man's plight.

HE HAD JUST NAILED HIM TO A CROSS, hours before that. There were at minimum 14 other praetorian guardsmen there at the crucifixion site, and everyone assigned to Christ's cross (5 of them) would have been beheaded for refusing to carry out the degree of Pilate!

You have to be kidding me. History already records the Roman law for crucifixion or execution in secular and hostile sources to Christianity (Jewish). That centurion would have been executed and the 4 praetorian guardsmen he was assigned to, it was illegal for a Roman citizen to be crucified. That's why Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded.

The centurion had ALREADY decided NOT to break his legs.

Well YEAH,.. He was already dead! No need to break the legs to hasten the death of a DEAD man.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Is the antiseptic with Myrrh in it what you use to revive the dead at accident scenes? Seems like that would solve all the healthcare issues overnight.

We just need Myrrh correct?

No, CPR and AED's are what we use to bring people back from the dead at accident scenes. Anything with myrrh in it would be used help prevent infections, like an antibiotic cream or liquid applied to a bandage. It's useful in treating life threatening injuries and would help prevent people from dieing, not bringing them back from the dead.

Pilots wife has a bad dream about the crucifixion of Jesus and warns Pilot not to do it.

Matthew 27:19. “When he (Pilate) was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.”

Pilot claims Jesus to be "just. He washes his own hands and tell the Jews that his blood is on them.

Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Pilot has no anger or malice toward Jesus, quite the contrary. His soldiers were probably a little worried about how the gods may judge them as well, being that they were extremely superstitious people themselves.

Mat 27:26 Then released he [ Then Pilate released] Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Who scourged Jesus, Pilot? It really says very little about this event, and its effects on Jesus. Why, if this was so devastating to the body of Jesus, is so little said about his wounds and his condition, from this point?

Mat 27:27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

Mat 27:28 And they stripped him [Jesus], and put on him a scarlet robe.

Mat 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his [Jesus'] head, and a reed [staff] in his right hand: and they bowed the knee [knelt] before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

Mat 27:30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.

Mat 27:31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

That's all we know about the pre-crucifixtion injuries of Jesus. The rest is just speculation and a morbid sense of wishful thinking, on your part.

We know Jesus "gave up" after taking the sponge, that probably was laced with opiates. We know that Pilot took money from Joseph, to take Jesus down early. We know the guard didn't break his legs.

We know Joseph and Nicodemus dressed Jesus with myrrh and aloe. Joseph moved a bolder in front of a cave.

Mary came to anoint Jesus on Sunday. If the tomb was supposedly sealed, and Jesus had been dead for 2 1/2 days, why was Mary thinking she could anoint Jesus? She was there to apply more healing herbs.

Why was Jesus clothed like a gardener, or beekeeper as some translations have it, with a veil over his face? Is that the way the glorified body dresses, in disguise? Because he didn't want the evil Jews to know he still lived.

Why, when Mary went to hug Jesus, did he say, "Touch me not?" Because he was hurting!

This is only a tiny bit of evidence that Jesus didn't die. There is much, much more, even more convincing evidence, that Jesus survived the crucifixion event.

reply to post by windword

This is only a tiny bit of evidence that Jesus didn't die. There is much, much more, even more convincing evidence, that Jesus survived the crucifixion event.

Yup. Thanks, w!
I didn't dare bring up the "Letter From an Eyewitness", because I knew it would be dismissed out of hand as not being included in the Bible.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You have to be kidding me. History already records the Roman law for crucifixion or execution in secular and hostile sources to Christianity (Jewish). That centurion would have been executed and the 4 praetorian guardsmen he was assigned to,

So,......why did he not break the legs?
Nope. Not kidding.
I thought your source was the Bible alone, interpreting itself....and infallible.
Am I mistaken?

The Bible does not support your theory. The Bible says the guy was sympathetic, told the other guy(s) not to break his legs, and felt sympathy for the mourners.

It also does not report that the centurion in charge was subsequently executed. Where (pray tell) did you find that he was or was not 'executed' for breaking the 'law'?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

HE HAD JUST NAILED HIM TO A CROSS, hours before that.

So?
He didn't have a chance to change his mind? And where (please?) does it say he was the same guy who drove the nails in?
Even if he did...that doesn't mean he didn't have a change of heart (change of faith)!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


A morbidly interesting yet very sad description of what Jesus went through to save all humanity.
The price of his blood gives humanity tremendous leeway for forgiveness,
but not an indefinite license to do whatever they want for all time.
He has to see we are at least trying to fight sinful tendencies not embracing them and letting them rule our lives.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

but not an indefinite license to do whatever they want for all time.

Paul and James effectively put that false idea to bed in the epistles. Come on bro.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Is the antiseptic with Myrrh in it what you use to revive the dead at accident scenes? Seems like that would solve all the healthcare issues overnight.

We just need Myrrh correct?

No, CPR and AED's are what we use to bring people back from the dead at accident scenes. Anything with myrrh in it would be used help prevent infections, like an antibiotic cream or liquid applied to a bandage. It's useful in treating life threatening injuries and would help prevent people from dieing, not bringing them back from the dead.

I was mocking the idea that someone on the verge of death from hypovolemic shock could be miraculously healed by Myrrh.

reply to post by wildtimes

So,......why did he not break the legs?

Because there is no need to hasten the death of a dead man. Breaking of the legs was to hasten death, to make it impossible for the person to lift off the foot nails to exhale. Jesus instead had a spear thrust into His chest cavity which was the Roman protocol for removing a corpse from the cross. Generally corpses were left on the cross to decompose as a testament to Rome's authority. The only way one could be removed was if a spear or sword was fist thrust through the corpse to insure death.

You guys are forgetting all the Jewish authorities even the High Priest were all in attendance at the crucifixion.

About 24 hrs. ago I bought the book by Joseph Atwill, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus which draws parallels between the Gospels and the Histories of Josephus. He mentions this section (below) of his autobiographical work as being the part, apparently, which corresponds to Jesus' crucifixion.

Moreover, when the city Jerusalem was taken by force … I was sent by Titus Caesar … to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp; as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

Life of Flavius Josephus, 75, 417, 420-421
He also points out the similarity between Josephus' "real" name, Joseph bar Matthias and the name of the person who asks Pilate for Jesus' body in the Gospel story, Joseph of Arimathea.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Because there is no need to hasten the death of a dead man.

Hmmmm....
okay.

I thought I recalled you describing in earlier posts what had happened (been done) to him, that most of his bones were broken, etc, and his heart was pierced......
if I don't remember your description correctly, then....my bad.

reply to post by wildtimes


I've never said His bones were broken. That was actually a fulfillment of prophecy that His bones would not be broken. Even in the Passover lamb ritual the bones of the lamb to be sacrificed could not be broken.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yeah, Josephus was the man's Roman name, it was actually "Titus", Josephus was his surname. However Titus Flavius Josephus was born 5 years after the crucifixion in 37 AD, he died in 100AD.

Obviously not the same as Joseph of Aramithea, this Joseph wasn't born at the time of Christ.