>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
>Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 10:30 AM
>This neglects something that I think would have been clear to anyone who
>had witnessed the crucifixion: one does not swoon on a cross and recover.
>This is evident in the way they hastened the death of the two crucified
>with our Lord--they broke their legs. This meant that they could no
>longer push up enough to reduce the tension on the thorax sufficiently to
>take a breath. All that is necessary to suffocate a person is to tie
>their outstretched arms to a support and not put a support under their
>Observers at the scene had clearly seen that Jesus was no longer pushing
>up to take a breath during the time that it took to go into the city and
>get permission to take the body down for burial. This had to be longer
>than the maximum time that one can survive without inhaling. So, if Jesus
>had only swooned at first, he would have been dead before they could take
>him down. This is independent of the spear thrust into his heart, another
>matter that would be fatal. Unless one can make a case that he was not
>crucified at all [Muslim style, perhaps], Jesus died.
>Therefore, we must turn to the resurrection. Were the witnesses lying, or
>were they hallucinating? These attempts to "debunk" the resurrection have
>insurmountable flaws when examined thoroughly. The hope that legends grew
>up later is destroyed by the date of the earliest manuscripts. The
>testimony of the witnesses rings true, as does the effect of faith in the
>risen Lord down through the millennia since. If you want to follow a
>Tipleresque script, you have to swallow harder than anybody I've met can.
>Science fiction can be fun, but it's not a basis for building a
>Was the resurrection supernatural? a matter of direct divine
>intervention? Is there any other possible explanation for someone known
>dead who later ate and could be touched, yet suddenly disappeared and
>then turned up in sealed room?
It is interesting how all of this is observational data observed by the
apostles. Why do we christians have a tendency to want to believe THIS
sense data but when it comes to evolution or fossil man, we get mighty
persnickety about accepting it? I know why and so does everyone else. But it
is mighty inconsistent to pick and choose what sense data we will accept and
which we won't!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 22 2002 - 13:59:47 EST