PDA

View Full Version : ''Jesus died of blood clot'' - researcher



Templar Knight
06-08-2005, 10:37
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.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050608/325/fknjf.html

Grey_Fox
06-08-2005, 10:49
Only way we'll know what Jesus probably died of would be if we nailed an Israeli to a cross.

However, it's kind of a waste of time debating what the cause of death was. Cause of death was being nailed to the cross in the first place.

Beirut
06-08-2005, 11:09
[QUOTE=Grey_Fox]Only way we'll know what Jesus probably died of would be if we nailed an Israeli to a cross.
QUOTE]

Methinks volunteers would be scarce.

Ja'chyra
06-08-2005, 11:20
So now we know what a mythical figure may have died of if, of course, he ever existed.

Time well spent.

Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 12:57
There is proof that he existed. Not of him being a god.

monkian
06-08-2005, 13:48
Cause of death

Death could come in hours or days, depending on exact methods, the health of those crucified, and environmental circumstances.

A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the victim would have severe difficulty exhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the lungs. The victim would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners were said to break the victim's legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his death. Once deprived of support and unable to lift himself, the victim would die within a few minutes.

If death did not come from asphyxiation, it could result from a number of other causes, including physical shock caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion, and the nailing itself, dehydration, and exhaustion.

Experiments by Frederick Zugibe have revealed that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly increasing discomfort and pain. This would correspond to the Roman use of crucifixion as a prolonged, agonizing, humiliating death. Zugibe claims that the breaking of the crucified victim's legs to hasten death, mentioned in the Gospel accounts, was done in order to cause severe traumatic shock or death by fat embolism, and only as a coup de grace. Crucifixion on a single pole with no transom, with hands affixed over one's head, would precipitate rapid asphyxiation if no block was provided to stand on, or once the legs were broken.

from Wikkipedia.org

Ja'chyra
06-08-2005, 15:43
There is proof that he existed. Not of him being a god.

What proof?

Redleg
06-08-2005, 15:47
What proof?

Why don't you provide proof that an individual named Jesus Christ as described in the Bible and other writings did not exist.

Its your claim that he is a myth, not mine.

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 16:39
Jesus shows up in Josephus's historical account of the period (he was actually writing about the events leading up to Masada and the diaspora). I think Jesus also has passing reference in several official Roman documents, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Most scholars, regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack therof), agree a Jesus of Nazareth did exist. The questions that exist about him regard his divinity.

Ja'chyra
06-08-2005, 21:33
Jesus shows up in Josephus's historical account of the period (he was actually writing about the events leading up to Masada and the diaspora). I think Jesus also has passing reference in several official Roman documents, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Most scholars, regardless of their religious persuasion (or lack therof), agree a Jesus of Nazareth did exist. The questions that exist about him regard his divinity.

Didn't know that. I wasn't being sarcastic Red, only asking.

Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 21:36
What Don said. And yeah, I think he was mentioned in some Roman documents, or something...

Templar Knight
06-08-2005, 21:38
Was his real name not Joshua or something but it wasn't Roman enough so they 'romanized' it to Jesus?

Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 21:52
I never understood how names could go from Hezakia (or something) and Abrahim to Mary and Joseph... Sure it was a long time between the Old and New, but even the Apostoles have pretty radically different names. I mean John to Judas?
I just always found that weird.

Goofball
06-08-2005, 22:13
Was his real name not Joshua or something but it wasn't Roman enough so they 'romanized' it to Jesus?

What are you talking about? Everybody knows Jesus is a Mexican name...

:sombrero:

GoreBag
06-09-2005, 00:50
Was his real name not Joshua or something but it wasn't Roman enough so they 'romanized' it to Jesus?

Yeshua, specifically. Interestingly enough as well, "Christ" wasn't part of his name, either. It's not even an English word!

Don Corleone
06-09-2005, 00:57
Christ is a title, not a name. It's the Greek word for 'Savior'. In Hebrew, the word is Messiah.

It's more accurate to call Him Jesus the Christ. His name would have been Jesus, son of Joseh, or Jesus of Nazareth.

Tribesman
06-09-2005, 01:06
An Israeli researcher has challenged the popular belief that Jesus died of blood loss on the cross,
Well thats the first time I have ever read or heard about "blood loss" being a possible cause of death from crucifiction , so what is this "popular belief" that the professor is on about ?
It is such a wide spread and popular belief that it was mentioned as a possibilty in one medical journal ~:confused:

Maybe if the professor is so worried about thrombosis he should do some proper research . If he wants to concentrate on crucifiction perhaps he could do a little field trip to Southern Sudan/Northern Uganda and dig up some more recent victims for his "research" .

Grey_Fox
06-09-2005, 01:36
The names of the major religious figures were changed in order to "Europanise" them.

Xiahou
06-09-2005, 02:21
An Israeli researcher has challenged the popular belief that Jesus died of blood loss on the cross,
Well thats the first time I have ever read or heard about "blood loss" being a possible cause of death from crucifiction , so what is this "popular belief" that the professor is on about ?
Indeed. I went to Catholic school k-12 and I don't recollect ever being told Jesus died from blood loss. The impression I was usually under was some combination of asphixiation/exhaustion. Surely blood loss didn't help at all... but even if it was a blood clot, who cares? He died from being beaten, tortured and crucified. The nuances of it are really irrelavant to the overall theme.

Aurelian
06-09-2005, 05:44
"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."

Obviously, Brenner has never seen Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".

As the soon-to-be-sainted J.P. II reportedly said after watching the movie: "It is as it was."

If we factor in papal infallibility and the amount of blood shooting all over the place in 'The Passion's' scourging scene then we can only conclude... ~D

topic change

"What Don said. And yeah, I think he was mentioned in some Roman documents, or something..."

The account that mentions Jesus in Josephus appears to have been heavily doctored. It's not a great piece of evidence for Jesus' existence by itself just on those grounds.

There were a number of forged accounts of Jesus' trial that popped up during the Roman imperial era, but those have all long since been dismissed as frauds.

Basically, we're stuck with the somewhat indirect evidence provided by his followers.

This is not to say that he was necessarily mythical as a person... because there isn't much direct documentary evidence surviving for anyone "non-official" in the ancient world.

Quid
06-09-2005, 10:17
Edit: Let me apologise for this long post. I had no reason to do such a silly thing other than...well, to write my probably longest post ever!

I have had quite a good time reading through this thread and it seems, a lot of what I was going to say has already been mentioned by a lot of patrons. To further 'rattle some cages' let me just reiterate and write down some other noteworthy points that may have been overlooked or forgotten.

First of all, there is actually no real credible account of Jesus' birth and its wehereabouts apart from what is written in the four main gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew and John). And even they were composed after Jesus' death. Furthermore, they definitely have been tampered with over the centuries and would look quite different now, if they hadn't. To add to this, concerning the birth of Jesus, they also give quite different accounts of it, and indeed contradict each other, since probably none of the above were present at that time.


His name would have been Jesus, son of Joseh, or Jesus of Nazareth.

I agree with your first interpreatation but disagree with the second. It is more than likely that Jesus was not known as Jesus of Nazareth at that time but as Jesus the Nazarene as referred to in the original Greek version of the New Testament and consequently mistranslated into the newer versions. 'Nazareans' or 'Nazarenes' is strictly a sectarian word and has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazareth. It, as stated, refers to a sect or movement that were all too common at those times (such as Essenes (often referred to as the Zealots) or the Pharasees).

The Zealots were then also responsible, in large for the revolt of A.D. 66.


Christ is a title, not a name. It's the Greek word for 'Savior'. In Hebrew, the word is Messiah.

The word 'Messiah' in those times had little to do with anything devine but rather meant nothing more than anointed king or liberator. It had, more than anything, to do with politics in those troubled times. So quite different from later Christian interpretations of 'Son of God'. You are right, however, in saying that only later was He called Jesus Christ whereas before it was Jesus the Christ and Jesus the Messiah in Greek and Hebrew respectively. Jesus Christ is simply a distorted name from a previous purely functional title.

There are several other texts that refer, at least in part, to the birth of Jesus. Many have mentioned Flavius Josephus, or as he was previously known, Joseph ben Matthias. He was actually born into Jewdaic nobility at around A.D. 37. He then proceeded to become governor of Galilee and commanded the forces against the Romans in the revolt of A.D. 66. However, he proved to be fairly inept at his job and was consequently 'adopted' into Roman circles with his new name Flavius Josephus.

He went on to write two main pieces called: 'The Jewish War' or 'History of the Jewish War' and 'Antiquities of the Jews'. These are the only writings (or subsequent copies therof) that still exist of the troubled times in Palastine in the first century. Further, as Don stated correctly, in the former texts there is the only surviving account of the siege at Messina (if you ever have the chance, go and see it, it's quite amazing; you can still see the imprints of the forts of the Romans and the parts of the ramp built by them).

In the latter mentioned text of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, there is a passage called the 'Testimonium Flavianum' where there seems evidence that Jesus indeed existed (born and died) as Christians see him today. However, that text would make Josephus out to be succinctly Christian. According to Origen (early Christian writer), however, he was anything but. He was born a Pharasee and then later adopted Roman culture. Two compelling reasons why he should not be, indeed, Christian. Hence, the Testimonium Flavianum makes only little, if no sense at all. It certainly seems to have been doctored with as Aurelian has already stated. There are numerous other examples of this.


I think Jesus also has passing reference in several official Roman documents, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

This is indeed true. There are several other Roman texts where Jesus does get a passing reference. E.g. Suetonius in 'The Lives of the Caesars', Tacitus in 'Annals' and Thallus (not his original work since that has been lost but his work does get a passing mention by Julius Africanus). None of these texts however, bring anything more clear to light. It is very likely that most, if not all, have been tampered with as was common during early Christian times and even more common in later times. All of the texts or mentions carry difficult question marks and at times, gross contradictions to each other or even to themselves and their own texts.

Maybe also worth mentioning is that none of the texts were written at the time of the life of Jesus; not the gospels or any other texts that still exist today. Most were written at around the time of the revolts or even quite a bit later.

And now, to the actual topic of this thread (please do excuse my total and utter obsession with the 'off-topic' part, Templar Knight!

For the 'on-topic' part I would ver much like to stick to what monkian said. It is by far the most plausible cause of death, if indeed Jesus did die on the cross ~;).

Quid (who really needs to do some work)

Templar Knight
06-09-2005, 10:22
And now, to the actual topic of this thread (please do excuse my total and utter obsession with the 'off-topic' part, Templar Knight! an interesting read quid ~:)

Fragony
06-09-2005, 10:37
[QUOTE=Grey_Fox]Only way we'll know what Jesus probably died of would be if we nailed an Israeli to a cross.
QUOTE]

Methinks volunteers would be scarce.

Depends on what you are voluntering for ~;)

Samurai Waki
06-09-2005, 11:20
The only real physical evidence noted as being property of Jesus, has a very intriguing yet unfound basis. The most notable piece of evidence that could connect Jesus to any real existence is via "the shroud of Turin" which has gained some support from both atheist and religious archaelogists. The Shroud was said to be draped over Jesus' body after his death. Someone took it, and it ended up in a reliquiary in Turin. Both sides now know for certain the Shroud contains blood-genetic material of some ancient origin. who's it is, or more specifically how old it really is has baffled scientists since the discovery of carbon dating. The original tests show that the Shroud was made in the 1100s, but after closely inspecting it, it was found out, that it contains some metallic type material (Like Zinc or something) that blocks any modern carbon-dating method to actually finding the correct year of it's make, and how old the blood is. If you could find how old the material is, then you could find out where it came from.
Also Genetic-Archaelogy is becoming a widely researched field, and have found similar blood ties from people who died in Phoenicia like 2000 years to modern people living in North Africa. If geneticists could find out the genetic code in the material found on the Shroud, then they might be able to link it to somewhere in Judea. It's very interesting to research. They have actually found a direct disendet of a 8000 year old body found in South Africa to a man currently living in Wales... of course right now Genetic-Archaelogists are more concerned about researching into the origins of humanity, where it started, and where it migrated to and from. Currently the vast majority of people living in Italy are more related to Germans rather than their Roman Ancestors, and more people living in Turkey are related to Romans than to their Turkish Conquerors. so maybe in due time, we will find out, if the shroud is truly a piece of evidence that can link us to a physical form of Jesus.