Jesus’ resurrection?

[Astute]

Lily, thank you,


How deep would you have to pierce to get to the fluid from the chest cavity known as the pericardium?

I will forward that the person that sent me that.


Thanks again!

[Lily]

Hi Astute, most welcome. I hope I didn't give the impression to anyone that I was dismissing the case for Christ on the grounds I just believed him to be dead on the cross due to medical knowledge alone. I was just replying with medical facts in answer to the scientific argument you passed on from another source.

The pericardium is a double-walled sac that contains the heart and the roots of the great vessels.
There are three layers to this sac, fibrous, serous pericardium and then the cavity itself.
It is behind you're sternum and the cartilages of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh ribs on the left side. So as you can see, it's a large cavity.
Having worked in cardio thoracics for many years I have seen not only by pass operations but many stabbings and this is the very reason that you are to never pull a knife out when someone is stabbed in the chest cavity. You pull it out, you can kill them. It may not always puncture the pericardial cavity but the first question asked of any witnesses is " how long is the knife " and x rays always taken to see if it has punctured the sac.
It became quite a common sight to see patients being rushed to theatre with what looked like a tent pole under the covers.
Ironically enough, talking of Jesus on the cross, we had one such case where two operating tables had to be used in a " cross " like postion so the patients left hand side, with knife were pointed down and surgeons worked from the top down. That knife was approximately 6 inches and it had pierced the pericardium. So you see, that spear would be enough to pierce pericardial sac and come out the otherside. Also bear in mind that a spear of even shorter length would do it bearing the mind the angle the centureon was at, the " up " direction he would have used giving quite some power behind that stabbing movement. Try that " upward " movement at home with something like a broom handle, then try the stabbing movement with something smaller on the same level. That " upward " movement is always more powerful.
Witnesses to this over 2,000yrs ago would be forgiven for describing it as water in appearance because it is just like water but when touched it's quite sticky.

Slightly off topic, " the spear of Longius " is very interesting in itself. Not sure but the spear they believed is the one to pierce Christ's side is housed ( or was housed, not sure if they moved it ) in the Hoffburg Palace in Vienna.

[Astute]

Lily,

Again thank you,

I sent your reply to the other source that I have been debating. You seem to be very logical and knowledgeable. Do you have the time to help me answer some other things I can’t seem to deflate?

[Lily]

Wel, I'm sure many others here would help you to but yes, I shall try and help out if I know the answer.

[Astute]

Lily,

Thank you and everyone else that will help me with my situation. For starters, my belief in Jesus is stronger then anyone I know. Another source has brought views to my attention which after my intensive review I have not been able to deflate. I gladly except and appreciate all the help I can get in this mater.

In an attempt to make this as short a possible, I’ll jump right in. The below was brought into observation in this matter:

"According to the Old Testament prophecies, we'll need to find someone who: Was born of a virgin, of the seed of Abraham, who is the son of Isaac & Jacob, who is of the tribe of Judah, of the family line of Jesse, and the house of David, who was born in Bethlehem Judea, who pre-existed his own birth, and shall be a prophet called Lord and Immanuel. He will have a special anointing of the Holy Spirit, and will be preceded by a messenger. He will perform miracles, enter Jerusalem on a donkey, be sold for 30 silver pieces, will be wounded, spat upon and pierced, will have lots cast for his garments, and will rise from the dead. The chances of just seven of these Old Testament prophecies happening in one person are 1 in 10 to the 17th power."

The other source said the Bible itself proves that the above is incorrect. I asked to prove it and show me. The below is an example of one I haven’t been able to pierce after exhaustive research.

___________________________

The claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem Judah.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; Bethlehem

“Two cities of the name are known from Sacred Scripture: Bethlehem and BETHLEHEM OF JUDEA.”
__________________________________________________ ______


Examination of Bethlehem and BETHLEHEM JUDEA


BETHLEHEM JUDAH < IOUDA>:

BETHLEHEM JUDEA: Is located in JUDAH, a PART of Palestine, 6 miles south of Jerusalem. of Hebrew origin (3063 or perhaps 3194); Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah), A PART OF Palestine:--Judah.
___________

Bethlehem of “Judea” <Ioudaia>
Bethlehem: Is located in the Judaean land (includes Galilee), a region of Palestine. Bethlehem is one of the twelve cities belonging to the tribe of Zebulun and is 11 km NW of Nazareth. It was CALLED “Bethlehem” or "Bethlehem-Zebulun, Zebulun: after the tribe named for the son of Jacob. Bethlehem: (i.e. of) DUST; Beth-le-Aphrah, a place in Palestine.

The interpretations below want you to believe Bethlehem of Judea in the region of Palestine is the same as BETHLEHEM JUDEA located in JUDAH, a PART of Palestine:

Mt 2:1 ¶ “… Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea <Ioudaia>, in the days of Herod the king"

Judea; Ioudaia: the Judaean land (i.e. Judaea), a region of Palestine, its Bethlehem is located 11 km NW of Nazareth.

Mt 2:2 "They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been WRITTEN through the prophet: 'And you, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH, "

Bethlehem of Judea <Ioudaia> : 11 km NW of Nazareth

BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH < IOUDA>: 6 miles south of Jerusalem


AGAIN PROVEN BELOW WHEN JOSEPH WENT TO WHERE JESUS WAS BORN

“And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea<Ioudaia>, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem,,”Lu 2:4-5

Ioudaia: the Judaean land (i.e. Judaea), a region of Palestine its Bethlehem is located 11 km NW of Nazareth.

In Lu 2:4 Joseph went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judea land (a region of Palestine) unto Bethlehem, 11 km NW of Nazareth. If Joseph had gone to BETHLEHEM JUDAH, he would go down from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth into Judaean land (a region of Palestine) through Samaria, into JUDAH (a PART of Palestine), through Jerusalem, then finally into BETHLEHEM JUDAH. Lu 2:4 proves that Joseph & Mary went to Bethlehem, 11 km NW of Nazareth. Not BETHLEHEM JUDAH.

WHICH IS AGAIN PROVEN BELOW WITH THE USE OF THE WORD “COASTS “<horion>

“And he arose from thence, and cometh into the COASTS of Judaea by the FARTHER SIDE OF JORDAN” Mr 10:1
“… had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the COASTS OF JUDAEA BEYOND JORDAN” Mt 19:1

“When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem (Jesus’ birth place) and ITS COASTS two years old and under,” Mt 2:16

COASTS; Gk horion; a frontier (region): an administrative division of a country WITHOUT THE STATUS OF A PROVINCE; that does not have the full status of a principal division

In Mt 2:16 the location called Bethlehem where Jesus was born CANNOT be referring to BETHLEHEM JUDAH; “ITS COASTS” horion; (a frontier (region): coast) can ONLY be applied to Bethlehem located 11 km NW of Nazareth and cannot be applied to BETHLEHEM JUDAH, 9 km south of Jerusalem.

Jesus was not born in BETHLEHEM JUDAH, located 9 km south of Jerusalem where claimed.
_______________

Back to me.

Like I said, I haven’t been able to puncture the above after exhaustive research.

I will be very, very thankful for any help I can get in this matter.

[streetsinger]

Thank you and everyone else that will help me with my situation. For starters, my belief in Jesus is stronger then anyone I know.

If this is the case astute, rather than taxing your brain over where or where not Bethlehem is, surely as we're coming to the end of the gentile times, we have more pressing matters to attend to, such as sharing the good news with the lost.

"According to the Old Testament prophecies, we'll need to find someone who: Was born of a virgin, of the seed of Abraham, who is the son of Isaac & Jacob, who is of the tribe of Judah, of the family line of Jesse, and the house of David, who was born in Bethlehem Judea, who pre-existed his own birth, and shall be a prophet called Lord and Immanuel. He will have a special anointing of the Holy Spirit, and will be preceded by a messenger. He will perform miracles, enter Jerusalem on a donkey, be sold for 30 silver pieces, will be wounded, spat upon and pierced, will have lots cast for his garments, and will rise from the dead. The chances of just seven of these Old Testament prophecies happening in one person are 1 in 10 to the 17th power."

The other source said the Bible itself proves that the above is incorrect. I asked to prove it and show me. The below is an example of one I haven’t been able to pierce after exhaustive research.

To one who is moving in the Spirit of God and intimately knows Jesus, I would have thought this kind of research would be unnecessary as the proof of the existence of Jesus is already in ones heart made alive by the Holy Spirit, and the commission to believers is not to try to prove or disprove the authenticity of Christ but to introduce him to others and bring them to the light. I'd counsel you to, rather than ask people who are not scholars to enter into study of this kind, seek out the scholars who prayerfully translated the scriptures and ask them how they came to their conclusions. I was once invited to a breakfast with other pastors to meet one of the team who translated the NIV, this was many years ago and I can't recall his name but he was very approachable and I'm sure the team can be traced through the Internet and will explain how they reached their conclusions.

[Lily]

Sorry for the delay Astute. No excuse, I simply forgot. My age you know


Somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind, I remember something about this on sky news. An Israeli archaeologist sited another Bethlehem, one situated in the region of Galilee, as the more probable place of the birth of Jesus. ( not me supporting that before anyone jumps on me )

Wish I had listened more now

I can't recall the exact verse now but i'm sure there is mention of " another " Bethlehem in the book of Joshua.

To support his theory, he claims that they found the remains of walls among on the edges of Bethlehem of Galilee, ( not Judea ) and the suggestion is, that early Christians built it to protect the real site of Jesus' birth.
He has no real evidence to support his claim as what he calls evidence was destroyed. What that evidence was, I don't know sorry.

Sorry, apart from that, can't help you I'm afraid.

[Robert Cragg]

If He hadn't been dead then He couldn't have risen again and fulfilled the scriptures. He died and was raised from the dead that we might be given eternal life. If He had remained in the grave it wouldn't have given us much hope would it?

You are 100 0/0 correct.

[eddybear]

Hi Astute Before I answer the specific question, an observation I have made over many years is that there are plenty of "experts" or "scholars" whose aim is to discredit Christianity. They latch on to some minor detail, and provide plenty of "evidence" in support of that detail, thinking that in their cleverness they have undermined 2000 years of people following the living Christ. Don't let them get to you - they're wrong, even if their arguments are hard to counter.

As for Bethlehem, rather than getting into subtleties of Hebrew or Greek words (which I know virtually nthing about), a counter-argument is this: the gospels were written by, and for, people living in Judea and the surrounding lands. If the claims made in the gospels about where Jesus was born were false, then the people reading the gospels would have known it, and the gospels would have lost all credibility. Anyone could have easily disproved them. But the people who (a) lived at the time they were written, and (b) spoke the language in which they were written, and (c) had the local knowledge of the place they were written, accepted the accounts. That is an awful lot more convincing than someone writing 2000 years after the event.

[eddybear]

As a post-script, "horion" can be translated several ways. It can mean "coast" but it can also mean "border", "frontier" or, more commonly, "region". The article above puts great emphasis on "horion" = "coasts". That's a case of someone choosing a possible translation that contradicts scripture and ignoring the ones that actually fit scripture perfectly well.