SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Each year, Cahleen Shrier, associate professor in the Department of Biology and Chemistry at Azusa Pacific University, presents a special lecture on the science of Jesus' crucifixion detailing the physiological processes a typical crucified victim underwent based on historical documentation of crucifixion procedures used during that time period. According to Dr. Chuck Dietzen, the Romans favored it over hanging because it was a slow death taking as long as two days making it quite effective for quelling dissent. "It is important to understand from the beginning that Jesus would have been in excellent physical condition," says Shrier. "As a carpenter by trade, He participated in physical labor. In addition, He spent much of His ministry traveling on foot across the countryside."
Evidence suggests that Jesus dreaded his fate. The New Testament tells of how he sweated blood the night before in the garden of Gethsemane. A rare medical condition known as hematohidrosis may explain this phenomenon, Dietzen says. In this condition, extreme stress causes the blood vessels around the sweat gland to rupture into the sweat ducts. While few of these cases exist in the medical literature, many of those that do involve people facing execution.
Crucifixion was invented by the Persians in 300-400 BC. It was developed, during Roman times, into a punishment for the most serious of criminals and is quite possibly the most painful death ever invented by humankind. The Romans would tie or nail the accused to the cross being sure to avoid the blood vessels. While many people envision the nail going into a person's palm, it was placed closer to the wrist. The feet were nailed to the upright part of the crucifix, so that the knees were bent at around 45 degrees. "Once the legs gave out, the weight would be transferred to the arms, gradually dragging the shoulders from their sockets. The elbows and wrists would follow a few minutes later; by now, the arms would be six or seven inches longer," says Alok Jha. "The victim would have no choice but to bear his weight on his chest. He would immediately have trouble breathing as the weight caused the rib cage to lift up and force him into an almost perpetual state of inhalation." Suffocation would usually follow, but the relief of death could also arrive in other ways. "The resultant lack of oxygen in the blood would cause damage to tissues and blood vessels, allowing fluid to diffuse out of the blood into tissues, including the lungs and the sac around the heart," says Jeremy Ward.
Eventually the person being crucified would go into shock and die after organs failed. Medical science can also explain why blood and water spurted out of Jesus's body when a Roman stabbed him with a spear. That was likely a pleural effusion, in which clear lung fluid came out of his body as well as blood. Shrier says Jesus' stamina and strength were, most likely, very well developed so if the torture of the crucifixion could break a man in such good shape, it must have been a horrific experience. "I am struck every time with the stunning realization that as a flesh and blood human, Jesus felt every ounce of this execution," concludes Shrier. "What greater love than this can a man have for his friends?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sgleysti on Saturday April 19 2014, @03:53PM
Ok, I'm with you in basic conclusion, but your second paragraph is a rather amorphous argument from silence. Josephus would be a better choice, as he listed messianic claimants in Judea (more specific), and the passage about Jesus in that section is an obvious forgery. Another is the impossible dating of Jesus' birth in Luke, which runs into actual Roman records on Herod's death and Quirinius' time of service in the government, not a lack of records.
I say all of this because, to the religious mind, such things are easily ignored. It is better to use the book against itself. For instance, the account of the afterlife in Job 3 is markedly at odds with that in Daniel 12 or Revelation 20(? near the end); Job 3 even says, in verse 17, "there the wicked cease from their turmoil" -- contra Jesus in Luke 13:28. The view of the afterlife we get after the Jews spent time in Babylon is totally different from the view in pre-Babylonian scripture, because in Babylon they had contact with Zoroastrianism (as you mentioned), which has heaven and hell and forces of evil warring against god and so on.
Even that, my dad wouldn't buy, perhaps because it involves accounts and theories about history that are not biblical. Perhaps conflicts among gospel accounts would work better -- the birth narratives and resurrection accounts have several irreconcilable inconsistencies. Jesus ascends from Bethany, Galilee, and a mount near Jerusalem, depending on who you read. In Mark, he tells the disciples to go to Galilee, and in Acts (I think) he tells them to wait in Jerusalem -- you can't do both! In Acts he waits 40 days to ascend, while in the others, he doesn't seem to. Judas hangs himself in one account, but in another he falls and his guts spill out. Different groups of women go to the tomb in each gospel, see something different, and do something different in response to what they see. The events of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke could not all have happened in the time span allotted, and so on. This is just from memory...
There are places where Jesus or Paul seem to believe that the end of the world is coming very, very soon. 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 is a good example. Luke 21:32 (and context) is another.
The problem of evil is another good one, as it is an inconsistency in the character of god himself. It's also helpful to note that god supposedly loves mankind, but still sends people to hell if they don't believe in Jesus, even though a majority of people will die without hearing about him. This makes sense for an apocalyptic prophet who believes the world will end soon speaking to "god's chosen people," which is a limited set; Jesus says things like "give up everything and follow me." All of this makes a lot less sense in our world.