Valeoz said:
What do you mean by religious texts? The professors thoery was based on biblical accounts, so it cannot be scientific? This man's work is completely scientific no matter how you put it. If you read the article correctly then you would have surely noticed that his thoery contradicts the biblical account of Jesus' death, which is Jesus giving his soul voluntarily. So where do we draw the line of this secular science and the supernatural? I say there.
“This fits well with Jesus’ condition and actually was in all likelihood the major cause of death by crucifixion,” he wrote in the article,
based on religious and medical texts.
The Bible is hardly a paragon of objectivity, is it? Like I said, the theory is based on a story in a book that may well not be true rather than on objective historical sources. It is understandable
why it's based on religious texts, seeing as there's not a lot of information about Jesus from historians.
What gives you the notion this article has anything to do with religious belief? So, it is not important. This article does not support any religion. It does not support Chrisitianity for the fact that Jesus gave his soul voluntarily. It does not support Islam for the fact that Jesus wasn't even crucified. It does not support Judaism for the fact that they didn't even believe in him from the begin. It seems that this article is supporting the secular. So does this man believe there was a Jesus? Yes. Does that mean he believes Jesus was divine? No. So that's how you could look at this article, even if you don't believe there was a Jesus, it's interesting IMO.
That was an open question, it wasn't aimed just at you. I was simply wondering whether this theory, if true, would affect anyone's beliefs in any major way. As a non-believer, I don't find it particularly interesting. I don't think it will shake the foundations of Christian belief.
