The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:

[Nearly Sane]

And it was all going so well - written evidence works with a methodlogy such as history which is materialistic. As said many many times before for something to be evidence for a supernatural claim, you would need a supernaturalistic methodology. I know it's probably a forlorn 'hope' but do you have one? If not then you have no evidence

Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?

I know that the Christian story includes 2 supernatural events - Jesus' birth and resurrection - but when you remember what Jesus taught about the purpose of his being born as a human being, one only needs to categorically disprove the resurrection to disprove both.

In what way might anything in this post or any other indicate I am am mythicist. The above post was written in relation to your claim that there is evidence for the supernatural claim of the resurrection. Not in historical studies sense, there isn't. I note yet again that in asking a supernaturalist for a method to describe evidence, I get no answer and in this case a heap of straw about what I have said. Why is that? Why are you refusing to engage with the issue? Why are you misrepresenting what I have said?


Anyway once more with feeling, what is your methodology to evaluate evidence for a supernatural claim?

[ProfessorDavey]

Both Tacitus  -  a well-respected historian  -   and Josephus, attested to the reality of the Crucifixion.  There are other references.  Some people post in the most abject ignorance!

No they didn't.

Neither was contemporaneous with the events, let alone an eye witness. Josephus was born perhaps a couple of years after Jesus' death while Tacitus was born 20 years later again.

Tacitus, writing in around 116 briefly mentions christians, mostly referring to the ongoing persecution of them at the time, with particular reference to their supposed role in the great fire in Rome. The only mention to Jesus himself is a very brief allusion to his death with no detail whatsoever:

'Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus'

That's it.

Josephus was writing in about 90 and some of the sections attributed to him are largely accepted to be later additions by scholars. But even if we accept it as authentic all it says about his death is:

'He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.'

So indeed there is a mention of a cross, but that's it. And that's even if this passage is accepted as genuine, which may scholars doubt. And really he is referring to what the early christians believed rather than providing a historically accurate description.

[ProfessorDavey]

This has been doing the rounds again on fb:

"Below are facts on How Jesus Died For You.

I do not think that we really understand how much Jesus did for us. Please share this post to spread the Good News of Jesus."

Crucifixion was invented by the Persians in 300 BC, and perfected by the Romans in 100 BC.

1. It is the most painful death ever invented by man and is where we get our term "excruciating."

2. It was reserved primarily for the most vicious of male criminals.

(Jesus refused the anesthetic wine which was offered to Him by the Roman soldiers because of His promise in Matthew 26: 29, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.")

3. Jesus was stripped naked and His clothing divided by the Roman guards. Psalm 22:18, "They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."

4. The Crucifixion of Jesus was a horrific, slow, painful death.

5. Jesus' knees were flexed at about 45 degrees, He was forced to bear His weight with the muscles of His thigh, you are not able to do this for more than a few minutes without cramping.

6. Jesus' weight was borne on His feet, with nails driven through them.

7. Within a few minutes of being placed on the Cross, Jesus' shoulders were dislocated. Minutes later Jesus' elbows and wrists became dislocated.

8. Jesus limbs were dislocated so that His arms were 9 inches longer than normal.

9. Prophecy was fulfilled in Psalm 22:14, "I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint."

10. After Jesus' wrists, elbows, and shoulders were dislocated, the weight of His body on his upper limbs caused traction forces on the Major muscles of His chest wall.

 


11. These traction forces caused His rib cage to be pulled upwards and outwards. In order to exhale, Jesus was physiologically required to force His body.

12. In order to breathe out, Jesus had to push down on the nails in His feet to raise His body, and allow His rib cage to move downwards and inwards to expire air from His lungs.

13. His lungs were in a resting position of constant maximum inspiration.

14. The problem was that Jesus could not easily push down on the nails in His feet because the muscles of His legs, bent at 45 degrees, were extremely fatigued, in severe cramp, and in an anatomically compromised position.

15. Unlike all Hollywood movies about the Crucifixion, the victim was extremely active. The crucified victim was physiologically forced to move up and down the cross, a distance of about 12 inches in order to breathe.

16. The process of respiration caused excruciating pain.

17. As the six hours of the Crucifixion wore on, Jesus was less and less able to bear His weight on His legs, as His thigh and calf muscles became increasingly exhausted. Jesus had shortness of breath.

18. His movements up and down the Cross to breathe caused excruciating pain in His wrist, His feet, and His dislocated elbows and shoulders.

19. The movements became less frequent as Jesus became increasingly exhausted, but the terror of imminent death by asphyxiation forced Him to continue in His efforts to breathe.

20. Jesus' lower limb muscles developed excruciating cramp from the effort of pushing down on His legs, to raise His body, so that He could breathe out, in their anatomically compromised position.



21. Jesus had pain from every movement.

22. Jesus was covered in blood and sweat.

23. The blood was a result of the Scourging that nearly killed Him, and the sweat as a result of His violent involuntary attempts to effort to expire air from His lungs. Throughout all this He was completely naked, and the leaders of the Jews, the crowds, and the thieves on both sides of Him were jeering, swearing and laughing at Him. In addition, Jesus' own mother was watching.

24. Physiologically, Jesus' body was undergoing a series of catastrophic and terminal events.

25. Because Jesus could not maintain adequate ventilation of His lungs, He was now in a state of hypo-ventilation (inadequate ventilation).

26. His blood oxygen level began to fall, and He developed Hypoxia (low blood oxygen). In addition, because of His restricted respiratory movements, His blood carbon dioxide (CO2) level began to rise, a condition known as Hypercritical.

27. This rising CO2 level stimulated His heart to beat faster in order to increase the delivery of oxygen, and the removal of CO2.

28. The Respiratory Center in Jesus' brain sent urgent messages to his lungs to breathe faster, and Jesus began to pant.

29. Jesus' physiological reflexes demanded that He took deeper breaths, and He involuntarily moved up and down the Cross much faster, despite the excruciating pain. The agonizing movements spontaneously started several times a minute, to the delight of the crowd who jeered Him, the Roman soldiers, and the Sanhedrin.

30. However, due to the nailing of Jesus to the Cross and His increasing exhaustion, He was unable to provide more oxygen to His oxygen starved body.



31. The twin forces of too little oxygen and too much CO2 caused His heart to beat faster and faster.

32. His pulse rate was probably about 220 beats/ minute, the maximum normally sustainable.

33. Jesus had drunk nothing for 15 hours, since 6 pm the previous evening.

34. He was bleeding from all over His body following the Scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails in His wrists and feet, and the lacerations following His beatings and falls.

35. Jesus was already very dehydrated, and His blood pressure fell alarmingly.

36. His blood pressure was probably about 80/50.

37. He was in First Degree Shock.

38. By about noon Jesus' heart probably began to fail.

39. Jesus' lungs probably began to fill up with Pulmonary Oedema.

40. This only served to exacerbate His breathing.



41. Jesus was in Heart Failure and Respiratory Failure.

42. Jesus said, "I thirst" because His body was crying out for fluids.

43. Jesus was in desperate need of an intravenous infusion of blood and plasma to save His life.

44. Jesus could not breathe properly and was slowly suffocating to death.

45. At this stage Jesus probably developed a Haemopericardium.

46. Plasma and blood gathered in the space around His heart, called the Pericardium.

47. This fluid around His heart caused Cardiac Tamponade (fluid around His heart, which prevented Jesus' heart from beating properly).

48. Because of the increasing physiological demands on Jesus' heart, and the advanced state of Haemopericardium, Jesus probably eventually sustained Cardiac Rupture. His heart literally burst. This was probably the cause of His death.

49. To slow the process of death the soldiers put a small wooden seat on the Cross, which would allow Jesus the "privilege" of bearing His weight on his sacrum.

50. The effect of this was that it could take up to nine days to die on a Cross.



51. When the Romans wanted to expedite death they would simply break the legs of the victim, causing the victim to suffocate in a matter of minutes.

52. At three o'clock in the afternoon Jesus said, "Tetelastai," meaning, "It is finished." At that moment, He gave up His Spirit, and He died.

53. When the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, He was already dead. Not a bone of His body was broken, in fulfillment of prophecy.

54. Jesus died after six hours of the most excruciating and terrifying torture ever invented.

55. Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to Heaven.



The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:
By Dr. C. Truman Davis
A Physician Analyzes the Crucifixion.
From New Wine Magazine, April 1982.
Originally published in Arizona Medicine,
March 1965, Arizona Medical Association.

"Will You Be With Me In Heaven?

All Jesus Asks You is to Love Him, Your Lord, Your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind."


But can you spot the fact from the fiction?

Firstly most of this is pure conjecture as there isn't sufficient contemporary and non-partial evidence to be certain any of this happened.

But lets assume it did - i.e. he was executed by crucifixion - yes I agree that it was almost certainly a horrible death and a barbaric way to execute someone. But he was, of course, not the only person to have been executed in this manner, plenty of others were too. And I'm not sure that this (however) barbaric was the worst type of execution. Not sure I'd want to stack this up in a kind of grisly ranking of execution methods, but many of those used in ancient times (and more recently) have also been pretty inhumane.

[floo]

If Jesus was crucified and popped up alive three days later, then his fate was not as bad as those who were crucified and stayed dead!

[Red Giant]

If anybody thinks Tacitus is reliable, they should read what he said about the Jews.

[ProfessorDavey]

If anybody thinks Tacitus is reliable, they should read what he said about the Jews.

Interestingly Josephus also writes about a crucifixion involving three people where two of the victims died but the third was revived following the crucifixion. Christians are very quick to cite Josephus when it suits them but rather more reticent to report that he also indicated examples of victims considered to be dead following crucifixion that subsequently turned out to have been alive and survived. Hmm, perhaps there is a more believable explanation for the purported resurrection.

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly most of this is pure conjecture as there isn't sufficient contemporary and non-partial evidence to be certain any of this happened.

But lets assume it did - i.e. he was executed by crucifixion - yes I agree that it was almost certainly a horrible death and a barbaric way to execute someone. But he was, of course, not the only person to have been executed in this manner, plenty of others were too. And I'm not sure that this (however) barbaric was the worst type of execution. Not sure I'd want to stack this up in a kind of grisly ranking of execution methods, but many of those used in ancient times (and more recently) have also been pretty inhumane.

I am sure there are specific websites that the ranking is discussed

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly most of this is pure conjecture as there isn't sufficient contemporary and non-partial evidence to be certain any of this happened.

But lets assume it did - i.e. he was executed by crucifixion - yes I agree that it was almost certainly a horrible death and a barbaric way to execute someone. But he was, of course, not the only person to have been executed in this manner, plenty of others were too. And I'm not sure that this (however) barbaric was the worst type of execution. Not sure I'd want to stack this up in a kind of grisly ranking of execution methods, but many of those used in ancient times (and more recently) have also been pretty inhumane.

I am sure there are specific websites that the ranking is discussed

Perhaps, but not sure I'd want to find them!

[floo]

As Josephus and Tacitus weren't supposed to have been born until well after Jesus died, they only had hearsay to go on!

[ProfessorDavey]

Most modern historians consider the Crucifixion to have been factual.  Most consider Tacitus, in particular, to be reliable.

But Tacitus, as far as I am aware, never mentions the crucifixion. Is this just another example of the kind of muddle headed thinking where people try to make the 'evidence' fit to their pre-conceived convictions.

[floo]

Most modern historians consider the Crucifixion to have been factual.  Most consider Tacitus, in particular, to be reliable.

But Tacitus, as far as I am aware, never mentions the crucifixion. Is this just another example of the kind of muddle headed thinking where people try to make the 'evidence' fit to their pre-conceived convictions.

That is what would appear to be the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Below are facts on How Jesus Died For You.

Say what now?

First, I have no reason to suppose that the medical details of how anyone would die by this means are accurate enough.

Horrific isn't it?

Second, whether "Jesus" existed at all is moot. There were though many itinerant mystics/soothsayers/street conjurors playing to credulous audiences in that credulous time so it doesn't matter much for this purpose whether or not there was an actual Jesus (or several such whose stores were later amalgamated). Let's agree that it's entirely possible that one or many who'd roughly fit the description were indeed crucified.   

Third, for all I know this person/these persons really did get it into their heads that they were dying because they were the son of a god who was unable to think of a better way to save the people he'd created broken. There have been many such over the centuries - Jim Jones, David Koresh etc - so it's not an unusual phenomenon.

Fourth though - and this is where you career of the rails - none of the above means that Jesus or anyone else actually did "die for me". That may well be the story, and you may happen to believe it as an article of your personal faith but none of that takes you one jot closer to demonstrating it actually to be true.

Which is just as well really given what an immoral construction it would be - why on earth should not I or anyone else take responsibility for our own actions rather than rely on a brutal blood sacrifice by a third party to get us off the hook?

Thanks and all that, but no thanks.         

[ProfessorDavey]

One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS.  My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often.  Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).

But this is, in proximity terms, much closer than Josephus/Tacitus to 30AD. Both because presumably when you were younger and getting your father to recount the story it happened relatively recently, rather than perhaps 80 years earlier. Also of course you were getting the information directly - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

But even then massive errors in transmission of information from generation to generation occur. So let me give a father example too. My dad lived in west london as a child during the war. He had a best friend who was a year or so younger than him. They remained best friends and met very regularly up until their deaths in 2013 and 2014 respectively. They always recounted a tale of how John (the friend) was taught to read by my father. This became simply accepted within both families and neither claimed anything else. So everyone in the family would attest to the 'fact' that Tony taught John to read.

But it wasn't true - it was a great story and had an element of 'truth' to it, in that it was testament to their lifelong friendship and their importance to each other, but it never happened. How do I know - because shortly before his death my father wrote a kind of memoir of his life in which he revealed the tale to be apocryphal. But the point is that although it wasn't actually true we kind of wanted it to be true, and no doubt both families will continue to tell the tale after their deaths. Yet without the actual memoir we would all have actually believed it to be true.

And again that's a tale with much greater proximity than Josephus/Tacitus to 30AD.
[/quote]

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?

Which "Jesus" - the man or the man/god?

For the former, it no more matters whether he really existed than it matters whether Aristotle really existed. If the words and deeds attributed to him still have merit on their own terms, then fair enough; if not, they can be discounted and we move on.

For the latter, "scholars" of what? Theology? Then yes, and wrong they must remain until one of them comes up with a method of any kind to show them to be correct.

Of history? There aren't historians who claim the man/god story to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of historicity. That's why the story isn't taught as fact in history lessons, at least not in mainstream schools and colleges.

Doesn't that bother you at all by the way - that academic history does not think to be fact your belief that the man/god Jesus is a fact? What do you know that they don't exactly, and how do you know that you know it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Hope,

Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?

Which "Jesus" - the man or the man/god?

For the former, it no more matters whether he really existed than it matters whether Aristotle really existed. If the words and deeds attributed to him still have merit on their own terms, then fair enough; if not, they can be discounted and we move on.

For the latter, "scholars" of what? Theology? Then yes, and wrong they must remain until one of them comes up with a method of any kind to show them to be correct.

Of history? There aren't historians who claim the man/god story to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of historicity. That's why the story isn't taught as fact in history lessons, at least not in mainstream schools and colleges.

Doesn't that bother you at all by the way - that academic history does not think to be fact your belief that the man/god Jesus is a fact? What do you know that they don't exactly, and how do you know that you know it?

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

And there is a big problem too with those that believe the stories. If the stories happen as described - with miracles witnessed by thousands then why did the Jesus cult not explode there and then amongst the broader population that apparently witness it. But it didn't - the early cult was not accepted by those that purportedly witnessed the miracles, merely by his very close followers. And of course we only get the stories second, third or more hand and filtered through existing believers.

Put it this way if the resurrected Jesus was witness by 500 people all at once (as is claimed) surely they'd have accepted his claims there and then and started a groundswell of belief there and then. But they didn't. Hmm, makes you think.

The problem is that the more incredible the claim, the less convincing it becomes if those whom apparently witness the miracles seemed largely unmoved by them.

[Nearly Sane]

Just a note for bluehillside, Thrud isn't Vlad

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just a note for bluehillside, Thrud isn't Vlad

Thanks NS - my apologies to those concerned.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others. 

[Owlswing]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.

As  I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

[floo]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.

As  I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

A good analogy.

[BashfulAnthony]

As Josephus and Tacitus weren't supposed to have been born until well after Jesus died, they only had hearsay to go on!

Did they?  And churchill's acclaimed World History was devoid of hearsay, was it?

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.

As  I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

A good analogy.

It is not a good analogy at all:  it is an infantile cheap shot.

[Owlswing]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.

As  I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

A good analogy.

It is not a good analogy at all:  it is an infantile cheap shot.

If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.

How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.

Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!

You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.

As  I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

A good analogy.

It is not a good analogy at all:  it is an infantile cheap shot.

If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.

How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.

Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!

You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions.

Did somebody say something, or was I hearing the kids next door, babbling?   

[Owlswing]

Hi Prof,

I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.

If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.

There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.

As  I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

A good analogy.

It is not a good analogy at all:  it is an infantile cheap shot.

If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.

How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.

Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!

You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions.

Did somebody say something, or was I hearing the kids next door, babbling?   

Such an adult response. NOT! But then what else did I expect!

Why do you not go back to wherever you have been for the past week or so! The level of posting has risen exponentially diring your absence and has, on you return, dropped like a stone.