Getting to the Heart of the Matter - What would an Autopsy on the Death of Jesus Show?

[Land Shark]

Especially given recent world events, I wish to describe (using primarily medical terms derived from the available scholarship and biblical testimonies) the humiliation, torture, and death of Jesus Christ in a way that I believe can be appreciated not only by the faithful, but by all people of conscience, as an example of what's wrong with our society today.

I begin by noting that the avidity for punishment is something Thomas Paine noted in his "First Principles of Government" is always dangerous to liberty. To punish him for his perceived atheism in later works, bones of the "architect of the American Revolution" were denied burial in the USA on grounds he was an atheist, yet here he nevertheless grounds his principles in a secularized iteration of the Golden Rule:

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Crucifixion, or being nailed to a tree or cross, is a deliberately painful agonizing form of torture, specifically designed in Roman Times especially to humiliate, mutilate, dishonor, and lower the social status of the victim. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Roman_Empire In the Roman Empire specifically, crucifixion was used for, and usually reserved for, slaves, pirates and other especially-despised persons. Id. Its "relevance" survives to this day not only in some cases of modern crucifixion, but in language, rhetoric and imagery when we speak of "nailing" someone for something.

The "Passion" of Jesus begins prior to being taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane, in which Jesus, knowing his path and fate, prays continually and is reported to literally sweat blood.

For centuries, this blood-sweat, unlike the tears of agony, has been either taken on faith or suggested as metaphorical. But is now known to be a real medical event, known to medical science by the term "Hemathidrosis" - a rare phenomenon reported at least 12-14 times in world medical literature and seen specifically in people under tremendous stress and agony. In hemathidrosis, because each sweat gland has a small blood vessel around it, a person actually exudes blood from every sweat gland in their body as a method of perspiration. http://www.antioch.com.sg/article.php?story=20050202083844249 During the night of Gethsemane, Jesus is arrested. Certainly, the scourging, or whipping with metal ends, causes bleeding and more.

The movie Ben-Hur (1959) is reportedly the first showing the nails being driven through Jesus' wrists, rather than his palms, which is the most likely method used, given that nails in most parts of the hand, unless very carefully placed, will not support enough body weight. The Hebrew word for "hand" includes the area of the wrist, the usual place of impalement that will not cause enough blood loss by itself to kill. Of importance to the central crucifixian purposes of torture and humiliation are the signs placed near the victim, and other events like the crown of sharp thorns (in light of the charge "King of the Jews"). Seven phrases or sentences of Jesus are reported.

Yet, people have survived crucifixion for up to 63 hours in more modern reports, and up to six days in ancient reports, so it is not precisely accurate in most cases to say that crucifixion is an immediate cause of death. Usually it is other actions by soldiers or guards both before and after nailing the alleged criminal that hasten and actually cause the death. Often, this is done so that their torture-duty may end. Soldiers grow tired or bored and they break your legs so that in about four to six minutes you smother or asphyxiate -- no longer push up with your legs to gasp for breath.

A medical analysis of the crucifixion story based on the applicable biblical accounts combined with modern medical scientific knowledge is posted for all to see at http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html Other medically based accounts can be found here: http://pinakidion.org/archives/medical-accounts-of-the-crucifixion Another in rough agreement with the conclusion of this former account is here: http://www.antioch.com.sg/article.php?story=20050202083844249

Three people were crucified that day, two thieves and Jesus. Jesus had previously declined a drink including wine and myrrh, a mild pain-reliever, thus declining some relief offered by medical science of that day. He also declined the Roman legionnaire's sour wine as well, declining the soldiers' relief or prolongation of torture. The thieves' legs were broken causing death, but it's reported Jesus was already dead at that point. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:14,31-42&version=31 Instead of breaking the legs, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:34

The medical reports, sort of like autopsies based on the medical available evidence available in modern times, conclude:

That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium. -- Dr. C. Truman Davis at http://www.konnections.com/Kcundick/crucifix.html

Whether or not you as reader accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ, it seems to me that all persons of conscience can agree, on at least a metaphorical level, that taking upon one's self all the sins of the world, including its tortures and humiliations and denials of human dignity and human rights, are indeed enough to break one's heart.

Enough to cause blood, sweat and tears.

And for any, in the broadest sense, doubting Thomases out there, those wounds were still there eight days later when Jesus said to Thomas "Observe my hands" -- inviting him to feel the wounds in his wrists. Those wounds still exist today, in the body of Jesus for all who believe, and in the victims of torture, and in the hearts of all people of conscience.

It is the dehumanization of things like sheer mockery, or the humiliation dismissed as mere "frat prank", that makes the most horrible crimes imaginable much more readily possible.

The Christian churches would do well to tell the story of Jesus' broken heart, instead of merely repeating that Jesus "bled and died" for our sins. He did not merely bleed to death, hardly anybody who's crucified does. In the final analysis, many who reject the teachings of churches utterly do so because they observe the hands of the church failing to feel the Heart, and know the history that so often teaches that religion has too often been a powerful force for making otherwise good people do horrible things.

GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: IT'S THE ONE UNIQUE THING WE ALL HAVE

“The heart is the chief feature of a functioning mind.” (Frank Lloyd Wright)

“A book ought to be an ax to break the frozen sea within us.” (Anton Chekhov)

“I believe there are two journeys which every one of us must make: into our own heart, accepting what we find there, and into the world, accepting it as our home.” (Lillian Smith, “Killers of the Dream” at p. 252).

“Peace is not won by those who fiercely guard their differences but by those who with open minds and hearts seek out connections.” (Katherin Paterson)

“Everyone can be great … because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't to make your subject and verb agree. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

“And I always have to stop and try to define the meaning of love in this area. And interestingly enough, Greek philosophy comes to our aid in this point. Agape {love} is more than friendship, agape is not something affectionate, agape is understanding, creative redemptive goodwill to all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. Theologians would say that it is the love of God operating in the human heart. When one rises to this level, He loves men not because he likes them, but he loves every man because GOD loves him.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Speaking about being a published author to a combined class of first and third graders that included my own two children, I urged them not to “write about what you know” but to write about what’s in your heart, because if it’s in your heart, then you will KNOW it. I told them they could, if they wished, learn everything I’ve ever learned if they put their minds to it, but the one unique and irreplaceable addition they can make in the world is sharing with others what they have in their hearts.

One’s heart, or one’s soul if you prefer to think of it that way, is the one unique contribution all of us can make in the world, and that nobody else can do FOR us.

On every level, we must get to the heart of the matter, or else we perish in our uniqueness if not in our physical life, and nobody will remember our name. True heart doesn’t simply turn tables and drive the stake through evil. It joins hands together instead. Then we lift each other up -- and we can all breathe free once again.

Have a heart-filled holiday!

[aquart]

1. Well, do it fast. He's rising any minute.

[2 Much Tribulation]

2. It happened long ago. Or, do you have a specific suggestion? nt

[KharmaTrain]

3. Find A Corpse First...

It's hard to do an autopsy on a story...even if it's the "Greatest STORY ever told".

I get a kick out of watching some of the biblical shows that attempt to prove Jesus existed. To date there is no direct proof...just a lot of very good PR.

For those who believe, this should mean nothing as faith should transform a simple human form.

[2 Much Tribulation]

4. It doesn't seem that the OP is really invested in proving historical existence....

That being said, one can get a murder conviction without a body, but a living body had to exist in order for there to be a murder in the first place. Have a heart! ;)

"Existence" is the wrong question anyway. Prove that you yourself today, or, for a fairer analogy and challenge, anyone alive more than a couple centuries ago ever "existed." Applying the same level of whatever one calls the attitude that doubts existence would in many cases reach the same result as to all persons of some similar level of antiquity.

That a historical Jesus existed is about as solid a fact as most anything from the days of the Roman Empire that involves humans as opposed to stone structures for example. The real debates are about the authenticity and translation of words and teachings, the influence of the apostles and others in morphing those teachings, the status and divinity of Jesus, the performanc or miracles, and so forth.

I'm not saying that several skeptics haven't as an intellectual challenge or a fit of pique written a treatise claiming non-existence, I'm just saying that this would be a very minor school of thought amongst those fair-minded non-"fundamentalist" scholars on the question.

[KharmaTrain]

6. About As Solid As A Fact???

I wouldn't quite go that far. We do have proof of the existance of many Roman figures, including corpses...as well as many contemporary writings and other artifacts that can prove a Hadrian or Caesar or Herod or even Pontious Pilote existed. There are the writings of Josephus that cover much of the period of Roman conquest of that region. Now, that can't be said of Jesus. Unless something has unearthed itself...there are no Roman notations of his crucifixion or any existance...nor any contemporary Hebrew writings. Evidence is circumstantial at best and many of the stories passed down about what happened came from writings many years and even centuries after the fact. The other night Colbert had a theology professor who discussed the contradictions in the cruxifiction story as an example of the conflicting accounts of events...and again from a distance of years. Thus to say there's fact isn't borne out by even some of the most hopeful biblical archeologists...that's why they keep digging.

The OP posted this question as if it were some kind of forensic study...one involving science, not faith. Believe as you will, but there still is no material proof. It's not a question of being a skeptic...I'd be more than happy to believe that a person named Jesus existed...regardless of all the other mystique and spiritual beliefs...once a true artifact presents itself.

[Land Shark]

8. The point of the OP is simply that Heart Failure would be the cause of death and further that

Christian teachings often do not emphasize this as it seems they ought to. It's sort of an if-then approach, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I researched this OP, I'd be happy to discuss the issues you bring up if you want to start another thread, but they deserve more than quick responses and I consider it off topic. (Though you're free to say it). I hope you can see at the ending that by no means is the point or purpose of the OP a strictly Christian one.

That being said, one thing I would throw out is that four greats never wrote a thing, (Socrates, Confucius, Jesus and Buddha) and in any event, writings seem more easily forged than a life. The writings of OTHERS, such as Plato, are equal or better evidence of the existence of Socrates than something that says "Socrates was here" in the form of a socratic essay of some sort.

[Land Shark]

5. Fascinating responses so far; kind of proving the great IMPACT this subject has on many

Well, that, and also (perhaps) a quick scan of the OP instead of a close read. That comes with the DU territory unless one's thoughts are totally twitterings and nothing much longer than that. Off to the next post! :) Still wishing a warm weekend to all ( and hoping this further dilution of the message will perhaps engage the heartfelt ire of someone keeping the faith! ;) Keep this ping pong ball rolling and bouncing along.... )

[stellanoir]

7. As a spiritualist who doen't really feel aligned to Christianity though I was raised as one,

I can't even look at an uncircled cross without my third eye burning. To me there is absolutely nothing redemptive about it.

The circled cross like the one used by the Celts flows much better and is the symbol for earth.

Esoterically the circle symbolizes spirit and the cros symbolizes matter or physicality.

To me the Christian cross symbolizes nothing more than the most notorious railroaded scapegoat, and victim of betrayal, mob rule, torture, and capital punishment pretty much of all time.

Here are some much more pleasant Easter images for ya. . .







Have a lovely holiday.

[Land Shark]

9. Thanks for the lovely holiday wish, and indeed will take kids on easter egg hunt here in 2 hours...

I don't mind the reaction (I kind of expect people to (from my perspective) overreact to the Christian element) but I wonder if you have any thoughts about the importance of Heart as I think that's quite a stand-alone point - even though it's connected to Heart Failure as a proposed cause of death within the text of the OP. Thanks for the comments, Stella, always enjoy hearing from you. I take it you would agree that Christians ought to be more anti-torture than it seems they are, on the average?

[stellanoir]

10. Well the significance of the heart is rather huge and perhaps is best represented

in the beatitudes, the sermon on the Mount, and his portrayal as the embodiment of unconditional love.

I hadn't really thought about it in terms of the crucifixion.

As for Christians being more anti-torture, how *can* they be when they worship (idolatry) the quintessential symbol which fundamentally represents it. . .?

There are droves of absolute hypocrites who masquerade as Christians who are into thinking that torture is okay to say nothing of all the allegedly pious war mongers/profiteers.

Juat as there are plenty of latent (or closeted) homosexuals feigning heterosexuality, or celibacy and piety. I feel that sexual dichotomy is in part the direct result of the spiritual/schism which is suggested in the Virgin/whore myths of the two Marys as misrepresented in the New Testament.

I could go on and on about this but I think I don't want to bum out anyone any further for the holiday.

Happy Spring anyhoo.

Hope you and your kids have great fun !!!

[Land Shark]

11. I agree with you about the incidence of hypocrisy, but in fairness, the intent of the OP

points to a way of understanding the crucifixion that evades the objection you suggest, namely that of Christians worshipping the "quintessential symbol" of torture. Stella, truly there are many Christians very much opposed to torture, and who don't worship it in any proper sense of that word, even if there are many more who have not fully realized, as did Martin Luther King, Jr., the fuller meanings and impacts of the Christian faith. Even as to many of those with a less heart-full approach to the Christian faith, they run around, in one pathological subspecies, accusing people of Jewish heritage or faith of being responsible for Jesus' death and therefore hating them. The actual biblical story much of which is at least alluded to above, suggests a voluntary sacrifice and not a killing or murder taking place.

That too many are insufficiently conscious of the problems of torture is something I freely stipulate to, but the notion that they idolatrously worship a symbol of torture per se such that the couldn't be against torture is just, well, wrong. But I do understand how you can get that belief/feeling/impression. Religious piety is, as someone said, one of the easiest things to fake.

"Many have quarreled about religion that never practiced it."
--Benjamin Franklin

"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it."
--Gilbert K. Chesterton

It is not easy to keep all of the important principles in balance, I must say, but recognizing the overarching importance of love and heart will rein in the worst abuses of any religion, or most of them, it seems to me.

[stellanoir]

15. Ohhh

I didn't intend to suggest by any means that all people of a Christian orientation are incapable of pacifism or humanism. I know plenty of Christians who are thoroughly gentle souls for sure.

Perhaps I should have been more specific that the small percentage of those who unconsciously cause harm to others or think it's perfectly okay to do so, might just be emboldened by what the cross represents. Though they probably don't have a clue anyhoo.

Who the heck knows?

All I probably should have said was that my association with the cross is certainly not a pleasant or inspiring one.

I know from my Jungian studies that associations with various symbols can vary wildly.

I just tried unsuccessfully to Google what is purported to be *THE* largest Virgin Mary Statue in the World which I think is in Revere, MA.

It's so-o-o gargantuan it's kinda goofy looking to me.

Did you do your Easter egg hunt hunt yet ?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

35. I will have nothing to do with a cross either.

It's a symbol of torture. Not of peace and mercy.

And I don't think Jesus really existed either.

[2 Much Tribulation]

52. There's always been a major distinction between the Constantine church and Christianity (for many)

Let's say the USA has a bad president for 8 years, or even a series of them. It's symbols get adopted or corrupted. Do we throw out the Declaration of Independence?

I believe institutional powers (governments, churches) have the power to confuse (to be sure) but not to ultimately corrupt -- unless everyone goes along with their usurpation and "ownership" of the "truth" in the ways they've misunderstood it.

There are forces within some churches and some individuals that fit within the realm of the critiques you mentioned but characterizing all of Christianity based on the actions of institutional leaders is like blaming everyone on DU for the Bush Administration. It's absurd-- and can only happen via someone who is at a serious distance from the realities of the USA and its diversity of opinion and opposition to the Bush administration. I get the feeling that you paint all of Christianity with the same brush, in much the same unfair way as blaming DU for the Bush Administration or throwing out the Declaration of Independence on account of the failures of too many leaders to do their duty and uphold it and the Constitution.

The truth speaks for itself, the humans are faulty at best interpreters and followers of it. The two should not be confused.

[rrneck]

21. I appreciate your

effort to redifine the symbolism, and it's a good idea. But the symbol of the crucifix is the one that was chosen and the that's the one that we see.

If the designers of the religion had wanted the faithful to think about Jesus broken heart they would see this everywhere:



The crucifix is designed to manipulate people. It solicits feelings of empathy for Jesus, and by extension those who claim to work for him and understand his mind. Those emotional responses make people more suggestable by crowding out critical analysis. It also helps to get people in a big crowd and have them do things in unison like pray, sing, and sit quietly while recieving instruction on how to intrepret scripture, all in the same emotional and suggestable state.

A good effort, but it would be difficult to intrepret the imagery in any other way than a means to turn crowds into herds.

And oh, have a happy holiday and thanks for the well thought out and interesting OP.

[Land Shark]

23. Thanks for the note of appreciation for the interesting thoughts, buuuutttt....

Well, before the but, thanks a ton for the art image there, it's great!

I don't think there's a monolithic "other" of designers of the Christian religion vs a few isolated hearts/souls. Instead, if you look (for example) to the Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes (and I'm quite sure I've not provided the best ones possible by any stretch of the imagination) the meaning of Christianity at its core and the balance between the prophetic voices of people like King, Cornel West any many others that teach the gospel of heart/love vs those that underemphasize or nearly ignore that is an endlessly contested one. It's not one where one person seeing this for the first time and identifying the very first supporters for such an interpretation. There's a rather large movement within Christianity that doesn't get as much focus as its support deserves. See Jim Wallis, Sojourners magazine, and many others.

I'm just doubting that the way all these folks envision or symbolize the meaning of the cross would be anywhere near the problem for you that you seem to be suggesting.

I probably should reflect on this more prior to posting, because somehow I feel we're very much on the same side. I guess all I would really add is the idea that nothing is permanent except change, and certain inalienable core human rights like those reflecting the uniqueness of every human heart and the respect each person commands (and owes others) on account of that.

The struggle over "hearts and minds" continues eternally in both politics and religion, each in their own ways.

[rrneck]

28. My training is not in

theology obviously. In fact, when I see any discussion of sacred text, it feels like people are describing their dreams. I'm sure it means something to them, but it's lost on me. And I think that's just fine. In fact, that's the way it should be.

My training is in art, and I have a fair understanding of how symbols and imagery affect people. The vast majority of religious organizations that I am aware of have been reduced to little more than idolatry in the practice of their faith. That's why it's good news to hear there are others like yourself who are reinterpreting their faith into something that is not so easily turned into a product or used to suspend people's rationality to gain power over them. I wasn't aware of it, and as far as I'm concerned, some's good and more's better.

You're right. This thing is a moving target. The danger is from those who would codify it into something from which they can profit. The best way to make money from something is to clearly define it and claim it for yourself, and those who would profit most from it least want it to change. I wondered in another post whether Christian theology had jumped the shark when the Gutenberg bible was printed, and maybe I was fulla beans. Wouldn't be the first time.

I know that there are a lot of intelligent, well meaning and thoughtful Christians running around loose out there. If they can right the ship of Christianity good on 'em. What I see in my travels are religious organizations that have way too much economic and political power, and they make me nervous. And I will continue to condemn, cuss, berate, and belittle that bunch at every opportunity.

I should probably reflect myself here, but what fun is that? Of course we're on the same side. We're both human, and we're both willing to hear each other out. That's all it takes.

[Land Shark]

29. Seems like one of those baby out w/ the bathwater issues, and I'm not denying existence of bathwater

I'm no theologian either. This thread got moved here from GD, view clock set back to zero. I wasn't intending per se to discuss theology in the kind of doctrinal sense that divides people. How odd that it gets moved to "religion/theology" and that brings out radical objections on theological bases that were pretty far from what I was expecting and what I intended to write about (and believe I DID write about)

As Joe Chi Minh suggests or hints at below, it seems to me that there are wonderful people of all faiths, who are more or less in harmony, and no matter how some bunch may be messing things up those folks ought not to be allowed to control/define things for everyone else.

[H2O Man]

12. Nominated.

Yesterday, I was re-reading one of my better books about Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. One of the most interesting, and moving, parts involves the final months of his life. His closest friends noticed that he was depressed, and when they attempted to cheer him up with worldly things, they found that he was detached. When he spoke to a couple of them, he talked about his doubts if the work he had done in the past decade had been meaningful. He was consumed by feelings that he had failed in his ministry, because he was unable to communicate clearly what he saw, felt, and knew.

In the last week or two, he spoke openly to a few friends about his knowing that he knew that he was going to die soon. He knew he was going to be murdered. He understood that his mission no longer posed a threat to only racists, who did not want black folk sitting at a lunch counter or using a public toilet. He had challenged the system in a far greater way, and he understood the consequences of that.

King's associates kept dismissing what he was telling them. It had to be frustrating for him. Looking back, several said they recognized after his death how lonely Martin was at that time. For those who do not read much, there is the powerful film of his last message, the night before he was murdered, in which he spoke openly about his up-coming death.

He also spoke about having been to the "mountaintop." Certainly, the majority of people, be they religious, spiritual, or atheist, can grasp that he was not speaking in literal terms about walking up a hill. Sometimes, we see people display rather concrete thinking, and insisting that leaders such as King are speaking literally.

For a large group of people, King's life was not in vain. Many of his associates that really didn't understand what he was saying then, did later. And their memories of their experiences with King are an important part of recording his ministry's power.

I look at King as a great man. He had imperfections, because he was human. Yet his essence represents the highest potential of humanity, in so many ways. He is, in my opinion, representative of a term used in the Middle East 2000 years ago, to describe one who represents the best in humanity: the Son of Man. That may sound familiar, to many, at least.

[FedUpWithIt All]

19. I really appreciate what you wrote here.

:hi:

[H2O Man]

30. Thank you.

I appreciate that!

[Pale Blue Dot]

13. First, I wouild like to see ANY contemporary evidence that Jesus even existed.

By "contemporary" I mean recorded during his supposed life. Right now, there is none. NONE. For a man who had such a huge impact on society, that is very odd. Even the new testament, as dubious a source as that would be anyway, was not written until at least 50 years after his supposed death.

[Land Shark]

17. Is that the final answer? : ) Or perhaps some audience help on this question?

Would it not be even odder for someone who never "even existed" to have "such a huge impact on society?" Would that not be even odder?

Please provide with your evidence that Socrates "even existed." Or Confucius, or Buddha.

For some reason a lot of the ancient greats didn't sit around writing about themselves, they were people of action and relationship.

Socrates had the equivalent of a disciple called Plato which is how we know Socrates and his stories. Do you have similar doubts about Socrates?

The fact is, the alleged "nonexistence" of the historical Jesus (your issue) would not affect the point of the OP in the least, which is a broader metaphysical point.

[ultrarunner]

31. Is that the final answer

Good point. They didn't have round the clock coverage of events taking place especially in a region where nobody gave a crap. What is important is that their were several hostile witnesses that did write for posterity about this rebel "Christos" who appeared to be the ring leader of this sect calling themselves "Christians".
Tacitus (56-117 A.D.) He was one of these hostile witnesses against the personage of Christ. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class and branded Christians as enemies of the state.
Suetonius- He wrote letters around120 A.D. during the 30 years of the reining Caesars about the punishment inflicted on "Christians" whose leader was a person called "Christos".
Pliny the Younger-In the years 110-111 A.D. Pliny was sent to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. He not only mentioned Christians but also their leader "Christos". He sentenced to death anyone who admitted during interrogation that they were a Christian.
Of course their are others including Josephus a Jewish historian.

[Land Shark]

32. Thanks for the historical information. Of course, the "authorized biography"

of a truly important person of antiquity would want to include all the important witnesses. One presumes that the entire authorized biography so to speak is excluded ex ante from any consideration at all. So that leaves only neutral, indifferent, or hostile witnesses. (Romans, mostly). But you named those, or some of those, so thank you.

[Deep13]

44. All after the fact hearsay...

...based on what Christians told them.

[dmallind]

60. Look at those dates....

Nobody is denying there were ChristIANS in the early second century CE. But none of those writers did, or could, write about an actual Christ.

[Deep13]

43. Nothing important turns on the existence of Socrates.

Plato who certainly did exist writes at length about him, but that is beside the point. Socrate's writings and teachings can be judged on their merits without resorting to divine authority. For Christianity to be legitimate, JC not only had to live, but had to be executed and resurrected. His teachings are unorigninal and of dubious morality. Only his divine personal nature gives him any credence.

As a side note, Plato witnessed (or at least said he did) the events in question. There is no similar witness or student of JC. The cannonical gospels are certainly allegorical and contradict each other. Plus they were written decades after the fact by nonwitnesses based on oral, liturgical tradition. Paul does not mention any details of JC's life and may not even have been writing about a person (as opposed to a purely spiritual entity). Anyway, he admits he never met him.

I can't comment on Siddartha or Confucious except to say nothing about their teachings appear to rely on either their existence or divinity.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. Do I sense a PREdisposition NOT to believe whatever evidence any ingenous Christian

ingenuous soul might adduce for your benefit? Ferget it, buddy!

[HamdenRice]

37. Charles van Onselen wrote a 650 pp book about a S. African sharecropper.There was one written record

The first line of the book, "The Seed is Mine: The Life of Kas Maine, A South African Sharecropper, 1894-1985," begins, "This is a biography of a man who, if one went by the official record alone, never was..."

The only written record of Kas was a fine he was levied, on September 8, 1931, for not having a dog license -- and even then, they got his name wrong.

The point is that even in a society governed by a highly literate empire (the Romans, the British), the lives of the troublemakers among the non-literate majority go largely unrecorded.

Yet in the case of both the historical Jesus and Kas, there were abundant oral testimonies -- the sort of evidence that professional historians take seriously.

Almost all professional, university based historians of the era accept the historicity of Jesus. You kind of have to be a crackpot with your own "fundamentalist" belief system not to accept the consensus of the historical profession about this issue.

[Evoman]

47. Fair enough, but what if the SA Sharecropper could bring people back to life and led a revolution.

What if he invented a completely new philosophy and led a religion?

I'd compare Jesus's fame more akin to David Koresh than a unknown sharecropper.

[HamdenRice]

48. I should have mentioned that Kas was a famous "ngaka" or witch doctor

mainly known for "curing" farm fields of pests. But no, not of the level of fame of Jesus or Koresh. Kind of a local celebrity.

[2 Much Tribulation]

50. That's what I meant when I said historicity not "fairly debatable"; still enormous room 4 doubters

Specifically, you said "Almost all professional, university based historians of the era accept the historicity of Jesus. You kind of have to be a crackpot with your own "fundamentalist" belief system not to accept the consensus of the historical profession about this issue."

The latest to say this fundamentalist "never existed" stuff is someone who's ID page says their motto is "Onward thru the fog" yet the name is "Manifestor of Light". Sincerely, I'd like to hear about the light this person is casting through the fog, but denying that a person named Jesus ever existed is an extraordinarily poor place to choose to fight. There are so many other places one could do so if that is one's inclination without taking such a weak position. Ironically, it's a faith-based position. Pure opinion, devoid of any fact. Just an assertion and nothing more. Whereas, the Roman witnesses have been cited in this thread, and one would have to believe that numerous people engaged in a conspiracy to invent a new testament based on a person who never existed.

Hmm. Manifestor of Light may well not think I am serious in inviting some positive light to be shed on something (the OP discusses the Heart so surely there's room to shed some light there). I invite that. It's the primary point of the OP anyway, isn't it? Getting to the Heart? Can the Manifestor of Light get to the Heart of something positive? Again, it would be wonderful if that were the case, and other folks can agree to disagree about the historicity issue.

[TexasObserver]

14. We can rule out Death By Chocolate.

But what a way to go!

And before you say Non Sequitur, need I remind you of that chocolate bunny you're thinking about eating?

[Land Shark]

16. the egg hunt was/is for kids only, but dangers of chocolate apply to other family members! ;) nt

[FedUpWithIt All]

18. Peace and love to your family.

:hi:

I think most people, regardless of their practice of faith or beliefs, can agree that it all really comes back to love.

[Land Shark]

20. Thanks for your message, and your autosig, which I appreciate a lot as well! nt

[DCKit]

22. No body, no crime. n/t

[Land Shark]

24. Jimmy Hoffa, no body, no crime, eh? n/t

[laconicsax]

25. Flour? Yeast? A refreshing merlot?

[Land Shark]

33. It's your choice, freedom of conscience is absolute. Choose the best! nt

[and-justice-for-all]

40. Anything you can imagine I am sure..nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. A wonderful post, Paul, but the Catholic Church does indeed have a particular devotion precisely to

what it so aptly calls the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

St Margaret Mary is the saint most commonly associated with the devotion, having received a message from Jesus in vision to propagate the devotion; not of course for his sake, but for ours. Here is a link to a quite a lengthy article on devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus:

"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07163a.htm

Apparently, the soldiers were surprised that Jesus died so quickly, relatively, but I was surprised that he lasted so long, since during the three years of his ministry leading up to his death on the cross he must have been under unimaginable stress almost all the time. From the Shroud of Turin*, it would seem that he would have been a very strong, athletic man, but even so, it seems incredible he survived on the cross for three hours.

Your post is pivotal to everything that matters in our human life and affairs. A tremendous post.

I see the secular-fundamentalists half-wits, who think they know better than Einstein (though they haven't left school yet) are out in force tonicht. God bless their wee cotton socks.

*Some related sites:

http://www.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-1303991290747972%3Argg4269qgm8&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=turin+shroud

... and here's an interesting article about our fundie friends:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169145/Religion-hatred-Why-longer-cowed-secular-zealots.html

[Land Shark]

34. THanks much for the Catholic insight. In sharing spirit, here's quotes I'd wish were in the OP

There's quite a decent diversity of backgrounds here it seems, especially adding Joe Chi Minh's and other contributions above. If I have by chance included one or more that some disrespect, then I have succeeded more than I reasonably hoped for! :)

“Words are just words, and without heart they have no meaning.”
--Chinese Proverb

“Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn't, it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn't. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you.”
–Carlos Castaneda, author of “The Teachings of Don Juan” concerning Mesoamerican shamanism

“We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart.”

--Blaise Pascal – French 17th Century mathematician, physicist, philosopher, inventor, theologian, prose stylist and polemicist, (1) first achieving fame at the age of 16 with a contribution to the projective geometry of a cone, including “Pascal’s Theorem” (2) the original development of probability theory, the basis of statistics, together with Fermat (3) work on barometric air pressure varying by altitude above sea level (4) credit given by Leibniz to Blaise Pascal’s method for infinitesimal analysis as the inspiration for Leibniz’s development of calculus.

“For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
--Matthew 6: 21 ESV

“That which is spoken from the heart is heard by the heart.”
–Jewish Saying

“Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
--1 Samuel 16: 76

“The heart of the matter is a matter of heart.”
--Rick Warren “The Purpose-Driven Life” (modern evangelical work)

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Thanks, Paul. Some great sayings there. I believe it was Pascal who said

something like, "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."

[Land Shark]

38. Yes, that was Blaise Pascal. nt

[Land Shark]

39. USA Poll released today: 88% said "Jesus Christ actually walked the Earth 2000 years ago"

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/articles/majority-believe-jesus-christ-was-actually-real-041209001.html

"88% said Jesus Christ actually walked the Earth 2000 years ago"
5% said they do not believe in Jesus
7% were not sure

It's surprising to see the several off topic objections as to the existence of a historical Jesus. That is not really even debatable. What IS debatable is the importance, divinity, miracles and status of Jesus. (This leaves plenty of room for non-believers) One wonders why such frivolous objections are made, especially when they are off topic in light of the OP.

on edit: I'm not saying that a poll in and of itself establishes absolute truth (though, in a democracy, it is the definitive way to settle disputes about interrelated issues of law, policy and fact), but nevertheless the poll does reflect conclusions reached by very high percentages of people after investigations ranging in intensity from quite casual and intermittent throughout life to intense personal research, investigation and search.

You will note above that a poster did provide the names of Roman witnesses who documented things arising out of the life and death of Jesus that are outside the text of the Bible itself.

[Deep13]

42. "That is not really even debatable."

How come people are debating it? Sorry, but the story is so derivative and self-contradictory that is is pretty clear that the JC of the NT never existed. There may be someone who lived then or earlier that formed the basis of the JC myth, but he is not the magical being the NT describes.

[Land Shark]

46. I should have said "fairly debatable" if I didn't in the original reply

The reason I say fairly debatable is based on (a) What Constitutes Proof a reasonable Person would Accept? (i.e., a consideration of what types of evidence and debate are reasonably available based on events taking place around 2000 years ago)also, relative to (b) the actual evidence of Roman witnesses or writers, standing alone, then (optionally) combined with those mentioned in the bible, presuming you will grant them any weight at all.

[Deep13]

41. When I was a Christian...

...I never agreed with the Evangelical effort to shift focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion. I rejected the "death cult" of Christianity. I thought the hope for the future was what was important and not the guilt-trip inducing manner of his death. So I find your post to be rather morbid.

Having since discovered that there is no god and, therefore, no sin or need for redemption or possibility of resurrection, the whole thing is pretty academic.

[Land Shark]

45. A close reading of the OP may conclude I'm not focused on crucifixion in quite sense u object to

(i.e. the evangelical emphasis)

The irony is that death is absolutely inevitable in a physical sense and that the death in question is inseparable from life and joy here on earth, as well as the hereafter, for Christians and other spiritual faiths.

You say you've discovered a negative ("there is no god") but one of the most solid maxims of law, philosophy and reason is that one can't "prove a negative." Comments?

[Deep13]

49. Facts can prove a negative.

I am of course looking at it in a practical sense and not an absolute, theoretical sense. While there is no god-detecting litmus strip, the circumstantial case together with what we know about how the mind works and the absolute lack of any demonstrable evidence in favor does prove non-existence.

[2 Much Tribulation]

51. Therefore, it's absolutely certain that no intelligent extraterrestrial life exists? nt

[Deep13]

54. The facts don't support that conclusion.

While absence of evidence is to a limited degree evidence of absence, there are so many plausible reasons for that absence that it does not prove a lack of smart ETs. The circumstantial case--the early development of life on earth, its survival in hostile places, the abundance of carbon compounds in the universe, the vastness of the universe, strongly suggest they are out there someplace.

[Land Shark]

53. What facts prove this negative, then? nt

[Deep13]

55. I've gone over this before.

I don't really have time to write an essay they you are not going to believe anyway.

There are numerous authors out there who have explained it in detail.

[Land Shark]

56. Let the record reflect you believe in intelligent extraterrestrials but not even a human named Jesus

"suggestive" evidence is good enough for ET but eyewitness accounts of Romans, apostles and others are not enough to prove to you that Jesus, even as a mere human, ever walked the earth. Yet ET has been here. Wow.

[Deep13]

57. You have no eyewitness accounts and I never said ET has been here.

I said because of the impossible to imagine vastness of the universe, ETs probably exist somewhere. The writers of the gospels were not witnesses and they did not intend to create an actual history, but a liturgical calendar. They also contradict each other (look at the geneologies in Matt. and Luke) and known historic facts (no empire-wide census for e.g.) I also said that based on those writings, some person may be at the bottom of the Jesus myth--much of it seems very human--, but he is not the guy in the Bible.

Anyway, what good does it do you to say JC was real but not divine? Religions don't get founded on the words of nice or smart guys. They get founded on gods.

[Land Shark]

58. Jefferson razor bladed the Bible to get only Jesus' words, and said "this I believe"

and it is still available as "Jefferson's Bible." JEfferson was a Deist, he believed in the inspired words of Jesus but not his divinity.

YOu have a good imagination for ET life, though you're correct you didn't specifically say they'd been here. So sorry about my overly quick reply on that detail. But given the vastness of the universe, survival of life in hostile places, and all the things you cite, it seems that's at least as strong evidence for the existence of God as it is for smart ET life.

Whatever vague "contradictions" you cite, if you have any experience in courtrooms or with eyewitness testimonies generally, you'd realize that people who see the very same thing rarely if ever agree on all the details. Imperfections of the human mind/memory. But it doesn't make it un-real. Nor does any "liturgical calendar" motive do so, either.

Without settling any "ultimate" issues, it seems clear that thinking of the example of Jefferson above in light of your statement "what good does it do you to say JC was real but not divine?" reflects a lack of imagination or thought/analysis as to the logical possibilities in that area (because Jefferson accepted a historical Jesus without accepting divinity), while in the area of intelligent ET life you seem to have no hinder to your imaginative powers. This is just an observation, it doesn't go to "the truth of the matter of the matter asserted"

The truth of the matter is the importance of heart, as I pointed to in the OP and then backed up with quotes from many different nationalities, traditions and faiths. I wonder/hope you have some level of agreement with that message, since it certainly can be interpreted in a secular fashion, and that we can conclude on some common ground.

The danger, and I won't claim immunity as long as you don't either, is that when it comes to spirituality/religion and to politics (oftentimes) many wish to talk but few indeed are willing to listen.

[Deep13]

59. "...least as strong evidence for the existence of God..."

How so? How does a vast universe make it at all likely that a psychological construct about what amounts to the Dad of everything real? We know life is possible. There is no evidence of of anything supernatural. It is only man's conceit that assumes that the universe must be here for us and care about us and answer prayers, punish sins and do all the stuff gods do. It is solipsism and nothing more. You don't start at 50-50. You start at zero. No evidence = nonexistence. There is real evidence however circumstantial that ETs are at least possible. All claims of divinity that have been available for investigation have been debunked. The rest can easily be chalked up to wishful thinking riding on childhood indoctrination. The universe proves that the universe exists, not god. Anyway, any god complex enough to make or run a universe has to be so much more complex than the universe itself, that it only compounds the problem. Any explanation for the universe must ultimately be more likely and more simple than the universe itself. Intelligence is a product of evolution, not its cause.

Jefferson may have been impressed with the words, but that is not the basis of Christianity. Nor is it an especially good ethical system. It is filled with impossible standards, misogyny, condoning of slavery, thought crimes and the requirement to reject our own human nature. What kind of a god creates people with human nature and then blames them for that supposed defect? The worst creation of Christianity by far is the value it puts on suffering, especially vicarious suffering, as a virtue. This corruption is so ingrained in our thinking, most are not even aware of it. There are many, many books of mythology, legend, philosophy, ethics and morality. What makes the Christian Bible, the Talmud and Torah and the Koran and the sayings of the prophet different it their claimed divine mandate. The Iliad has no divine origin, Homer might not have been real, but that's okay because nothing of consequence turns on it. Same with Descartes, Spinoza, the discoveries of Newton, Einstein or Galileo. Those things are valuable because of their content and the facts behind it. Maybe the Bible is the same way. But that is not the same as saying it records events accurately, which it the focus of this discussion. Whatever value it has as literature or whatever has no bearing on whether or not it is an accurate account of JC's life, the details of which his main salesman (Paul) apparently never heard of. The earliest foundational Christian writings mention no details of JC's life. That is a damning observation on gospel accuracy.

Let me ask you, how does murdering an innocent man make us less guilty? And why was this pagan blood sacrifice necessary at all? If we are in need of divine forgiveness, why can't god just do it without all the cruel theatrics? And if JC WAS god, who was god trying to impress? Well one explanation is that it was an act of contrition to apologize for the cruelties enumerated in what Christians arrogantly call the Old Testament.

If JC did not die for our sins (whatever that might mean) and then come back to life, there is no factual basis for Christianity.

Again, the writers were not witnesses. The contradictions are specific and go to the heart of Christian theology. As far as errors and contradictions, they are too numerous to list. Fortunately, others have already done that. Again, is this a holy book or isn't it?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

I listened for 30 years and found nothing but anxiety and limitations. To paraphrase Paul of Tarsis, when I was a child, I was concerned with childish things. As a man, I put those things away. I will not listen to claims that the sun goes around the earth, that the earth is flat, that we were created in six days and I will not entertain the idea that any god can be real. I have become sufficiently aware of the facts as to render it an impossibility.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. What's the point?? This is sick and perverted.

I refuse to join a religion who makes a torture/death cult out of Jesus who may be fictional.

I refuse to join a religion, or even respect a religion, that glorifies torture and death, and harps on constantly gross imagery like "being washed in the blood of the Lamb" and such.

Sick sick sick sick sick sick.......:puke:

Life denying and death loving. Nope, no thanks. I don't need that poisoning my mind.

Extremely primitive, savage and unnecessary with what educated people know about the world.

[2 Much Tribulation]

62. The phrase "Judgment is mine" sayeth the Lord, comes to mind... Echoed secularly by Paine... nt