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.
Just an observation.
All of the severe pulmonay embolism patients that I saw, turned blue before they coded.
The little ones stayed pink, but they didn't die either.
LOL!
Excuse me...........I thought he bleed to death from every pore?
I mean if the secular is going to make an out landish statement at least make sense!
Quit twisting.
I have had just about enough of this.
God's truth is logical. At the same time, there are some things we don't know. These aren't concepts that are contradictory; the truth we understand is logical and we know that even what we don't quite understand fits into a logical system.
Calvinism is that logical system.
Do you not believe you are right?
People argue because they believe they are right.
I used to believe your position was right, and I fought the same battles you are.
But, I now believe I was wrong.
Who knows, if you actually tried, perhaps you might convince me that I am wrong now.
Frankly, I don't think Jesus Himself could convince you that you are wrong.
"Why not? Isn't it up to God to decide who is and isn't elected?"
This is why:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but through me."
This is elementary orthodox Christianity.
You don't know that Jesus is the way?
The bad comment was from somebody else and I responded based on what I thought they meant "bad" to me.
I did not originally use the term.
Pointing out the illogic of your positions is not twisting.
I have had just about enough of this.
Considering how poor of a job you've done of defending your position on this thread, I can't blame you.
God's truth is logical.
And yet the system you have laid out is completely illogical. Which leads me to conclude that it is Calvinism that is illogical.
These aren't concepts that are contradictory; the truth we understand is logical and we know that even what we don't quite understand fits into a logical system.,
That is a wholly nonsensical statement.
Calvinism is that logical system.
As described by you, Calvinism's God is not logical. He is capricious and random and based on Calvinism, everything in the Bible, including the concept of sin, is completely irrelevant. God does whatever he wants and our individual actions have nothing to do with salvation.
Calvinism teaches exactly the opposite. Accepting Jesus as your personal savior is completely meaningless, according to Calvinism.
You don't know that Jesus is the way?
But he isn't, if we are all pre-destined.
Cute that you consider yourself the judge of all things.
What is the reason for your faith?
How dare you question my faith. How dare you.
Though I have disagreed with you, I never said you weren't saved.
How dare you.
I wish this site had an ignore user option.
You brought it up. Once you start claiming that Calvinism is the correct doctrine, you better be ready to defend it.
No....everyone has to COME TO FAITH IN CHRIST to be saved.
Predestination allows that to occur, but it is not a substitute for it.
I think a lot of our problem is you guys aren't understanding what predestination really is. It is not God choosing you and then you are done.
It is part of the salvation process clearly explained in Romans 8:29-30 that has numerous steps. It is just one step.
God's choice was completed before the foundation of the world, but the Holy Spirit still must come into our life and we must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Just because God chose us does not mean it is the end of things. We still must be saved after hearing the gospel because that is what changes our heart.
If we're predestined to be saved, we'll come to Christ anyway. So, coming to Christ is purely mechanical. Christ is meaningless, in that situation.
Predestination allows that to occur, but it is not a substitute for it.
If someone is predestined to be saved, can they still decide against coming to Christ?
Just because God chose us does not mean it is the end of things. We still must be saved after hearing the gospel because that is what changes our heart.
So, we can choose or refuse salvation? I thought your argument is that it was pre-decided who would be saved and who wouldn't be?
But I don't.
What is the reason for your faith?
How dare you question my faith. How dare you.
I apologize. What I typed came out clumsier than what I meant. I meant that your defense of your faith has failed. There is no judgement in that statement, as I am quite sure many people here would testify to that fact. I sincerely do not doubt your faith.
Though I have disagreed with you, I never said you weren't saved.
This is true. Again I apologize.
Oh stop bowing and scraping. He totally overreacted. Your original post was very clear. You didn't question his faith. You just told him he did a lousy job of defending it.
Exactly.
He also illustrated a famous courtroom tactic. If you don't have a good argument, just pound the podium and shout loudly.
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.