"None shall be saved without stars upon thars."
Posted on 06/08/2005 4:41:38 AM PDT by echoBoomer
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli researcher has challenged the popular belief that Jesus died of blood loss on the cross, saying he probably succumbed to a sometimes fatal disorder now associated with long-haul air travel.
Professor Benjamin Brenner wrote in The Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that Jesus's death, traditionally believed to have occurred 3-6 hours after crucifixion began, was probably caused by a blood clot that reached his lungs.
Such pulmonary embolisms, leading to sudden death, can stem from immobilisation, multiple trauma and dehydration, said Brenner, a researcher at Rambam Medical Center in Haifa.
"This fits well with Jesus's 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.
A 1986 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association mentioned the possibility that Jesus suffered a blood clot but concluded that he died of blood loss.
But Brenner said research into blood coagulation had made significant strides over the past two decades.
He said recent medical research has linked immobility among passengers on lengthy air flights to deep vein thrombosis, popularly known as "economy-class syndrome" in which potentially fatal blood clots can develop, usually in the lower legs.
Brenner noted that before crucifixion, Jesus underwent scourging, but the researcher concluded that "the amount of blood loss by itself" would not have killed him.
He said that Jesus, as a Jew from what is now northern Israel, may have been particular at risk to a fatal blood clot.
Thrombophilia, a rare condition in which blood has an increased tendency to clot, is common to natives of the Galilee, the researcher wrote.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
A pretty common answer.
But, it still means the plans of God were thwarted, which Scripture says can't happen.
Only if I limit myself to your own personal (and tortured) interpretation of scripture.
I choose (scary word!) not to be so limited.
God could have created a world of robots
who would do and say exactly what He wanted them to.
But he didn't He created man with a free will
to love him because he wants to not because 'he
is forced too.
I believe God would prefer that all men would
be saved but that is not going to happen.
Because they choose not to not because
God predestined them to be lost.
that's one i'd agree with. having had the opportunity to "hang" from a cross in chruch easter productions (i was the "good" thief) i found it difficult to breathe even just standing on a platform, with my arms tied to the cross bar for about 10 minutes.
Didn't God create man to love Him? How could we love Him without free will? And if we have free will, doesn't that also enable us to reject Him? And if we choose to reject Him, even despite His gift of salvation, whose fault is it? Why would this be God's failure? Salvation works for those who choose it. It's not God's fault that they haven't chosen to accept His gift.
But what about really, really, really big text?
And while you're at it, why would an all-knowing, all-powerful God satisfy himself only with creatures who love Him solely because of their preprogramming, like some kind of bizarre Perl script that repeats "I Love You" in an infinite loop?
This is nothing but an attempt to weaken the history of Jesus Christ.
Shhhh. Don't encourage him.
If God's will can't be thwarted, on what basis are some sent to hell?
SD
"Hey, I make typos. I am not perfect."
Was the typo part of God's plan? Is there any way you could have chosen to get it right?
"As for me, I believe in the ALMIGHTY"
Puh-leeeeze. RW, I see your same tired cut & paste jobs on one thread after another, and I don't say anything to you b/c you make it painfully obvious that you couldn't keep up with a simple logical discussion.
But I have to object to this ridiculous, tired gimick of hiding from any challenging argument by suggesting (overtly) that anyone who disagrees with you and your stupifying interpretations of scripture is against God. None of us here are against God, just your tireless antagonizing of fellow Christians over scripture, and your profound confusion over the difference between evangelization and self-gratification.
FYI: Just because someone happens to think you personally are an idiot doesn't mean they're dead in sin. If you can't see that, and if you're so callow as to try to hide behind the name of God every time you are mentally overwhelmed, then you really have no business picking the arguments you pick.
Well Said
I can't help it. I was predestined to do that ;-)
IMHO the best arguments against Calvinism were put forth by St. Francis de Sales. He understood these folks. And was able to reach them. Not for nothing was he bishop of Geneva!
I especially liked the middle paragraph. I wish I'd been predestined to write that, since it captures my thoughts very well.
"None shall be saved without stars upon thars."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.