Another Jesus' death thoery

[Valeoz]

This is not for believers nor non-believers. This is simply a thread about scientific findings of a very well-known man and a recent thoery of his death. So please don't throw any religious talk into this unless it has something to do with the article.

Please tell me your thoughts on this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7279844/did/8139434/?GT1=6657

 

[Illuminattile]

Well the theory was based on religious texts, so how "scientific" the theory is can be disputed. It's a theory on the death of the religious Jesus, not the historical Jesus, if indeed there was one.

Does this theory have any impact on believers? If you believe he was the son of God or a prophet or whatever, is it important whether he died of a blood clot rather than blood loss?

 

[Valeoz]

Well the theory was based on religious texts, so how "scientific" the theory is can be disputed. It's a theory on the death of the religious Jesus, not the historical Jesus, if indeed there was one.

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.

Does this theory have any impact on believers? If you believe he was the son of God or a prophet or whatever, is it important whether he died of a blood clot rather than blood loss?

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.

This is why I didn't want any religious talk except if it in some way supported or opposed the article.

 

[Swollen_Member]

Who cares how he died on the cross?!

 

[Illuminattile]

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.

 

[Jokerman]

OK, it's a possibility. Blood clot, blood loss, doesn't matter even as a medical theory.

 

[Duke]

Dr. Benjamin Brenner, a researcher at the Rambam Medical Center in the Israeli port city of Haifa, said he was publicizing his theory to raise awareness about pulmonary embolism, a potentially fatal disorder often associated with long-distance air travel

So Jesus could fly....

 

[Jokerman]

So Jesus could fly....

He probably used El Al.

 

[Duke]

He probably used El Al.

He might've been the founder

So, that might mean...that the ultimate responsibility of El Al lies with the Son of God!


I wonder what he's got to say about the Bijlmer-crash

*adds that to the list of "thing to ask God" *

 

[Bina]

hehe, i agree, the article didn't really enlighten me to any new info- Jesus died on the cross, coz he was nailed to it and beaten, its obvious he was gona die from an injury!

 

[thuggless01]

Off-topic dribble.

 

[The.Menace]

Does it matter what killed him on the cross?