I have been nearly fed up with The History Channel recently, but I saw an interesting show today.
====A BIT GROSS=====
Unlike the previous conjectures about how crucifixion causes death - respiratory failure, etc - this new twist on things has been based on human experimentation on live subjects. They make the case the NONE of the physical stresses of being hung on a cross, even with minor injuries such as nail punctures or superficial cuts, would have resulted in death as quickly as the scriptural account.
Historical accounts show victims lasting up to nine days, even when they were crucified in the original fashion, which was simply being impaled on a single stick. Gross, I know, but this is fairly central to our religion here so bear with me.
The show made the case that Christ's relatively rapid death - rapid for a man of his age and likely health - was consistent with a scriptural account of concurrent and preexisting psychological trauma due to pain and other stressors, which are thought to be the actually instrument of death. Usually one thinks of death being a result of an actual physical insult to the body that prevents the organism's continued existence, but it is likely that if Christ died as soon as it is reported in the scriptural account, his body simply shut down because the pain was so bad, and that is actually rare in terms of death.
This is also based on the scriptural account that he was speakind and lucid up until the end, which if he had died of hypobolemic shock or whatever other people have argued in the past, he would NOT have been able to "call out in a loud voice" and then give up the ghost. He would have checked out long before and lingered in a semi-vegetative state. Something catastrophic happened near the end, and physically it is not adequately explained.
And even if one assumes little validity in the account that his true pains were in the garden (which would support this position even more emphatically), the physical evidence aone sugggests that he did die of a combination of physical, mental, psychological, spiritual agony, and not just because he was a victim of an instrument of capital punishment. Quite consistent with the Christian's view of his uniquely distressing experience in his final hours, which has come under attack because of the fact that millions of other people have died in comparably painful ways.
=======
As a side note, the show argued that aggravating the situation was the fact he was close to exhaustion at the beginning of it due to not sleeping for 24 hours. But as a chronic insoniac who goes without sleep for this long at least once weekly, I am not thinking this is particularly unusual. Perhaps I am the unusual one, though.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Interesting. I seem to recall hearing that people often died on the cross from dehydration, which is consistent with the length of time you noted on the show.
Yikes. What a way to go.
Yeah, so basically it was about as long as you could keep them alive in extreme agony, wich is fitting for 'the greatest suffering,' etc.
I have an article somewhere in my piles of old seminary stuff written by a physician explaining his theory of the cause of death.
He opined that it was suffocation, his explanation being the violent contractions and convulsions from the piercing of the nerves in the hands/wrists of Christ. The muscle contractions were so violent around the lungs and heart that he actually suffocated to death. That md's opinion anyway.
In his opinion, it was a horrifyingly painful way to die.
But maybe it was a combination of many things.
My thought is that when he had suffered enough to complete the atonement, that is all that was necessary, and he died. He in fact "gave up" his life, having the power to do otherwise.
Christ is the only being on this planet who has ever had the power to give up his life. We don't have that power, because we can't choose not to die. That is not ours to give up. We can only give up TIME, not life.
Our concept of Christ is that he is half human, half God, which is scientifically impossible anyway.
To be a Christian, you have to believe in something that is factually, literally, scientifically impossible: a virgin birth.
Just my 2 centavos: Maybe Christ would have had control over his death and died at whatever point he knew he had accomplished what he needed to.
As for the suffocation, I addressed that as he would have lost consciousness long before death, and the scriptural account says he spoke right before, supporting a more catostrophic death based on the physiological response to the prolonged distress.
I have heard those arguments and I actually think they are in a way unsatisfying. First of all, they are fairly unique to Mormonism, and I can't even really trace the origin of them.
And more importantly, I don't really think that he was half human half God. I think he was both - all human and all God. Because otherwise he wouldn't have either been human or God.
He came to earth to become mortal, so if he wasn't actually subject to the elements that would cause his death - if he exercised some sort of supernatural control over them - then I would think that would defeat the purpose.
I don't really think it sounds like the greatest sacrifice to have a day or two's sample of agony and then voluntarily pass over the veil. I think that he did give his life, but that it is much more consistent with other aspects of our theology to think that he offered himself as a sacrificial lamb to be bound, and then submitted, to the crucifixion, and to mortality.
I am not a theologian, and I understasnd that it is consistent with some other things that Mormons believe,(which I have never really been too constrained by, obviously) but beyond that a bit strange and unsatisfying.
Also, I forgot to mention, that one of the Mormon doctrines that I actually DO like is the reasoning that ultimately everything will be understandable and explainable based on some sort of observable principles or natural laws.
Otherwise we are too open to various purveyors of philosophy and superstition. Doesn't mean that we will understand things any time soon, but just like we don't think the weather is caused by witchraft like they used to in the 1600's there are some things that become much better understood eventually, I have hope anyway.
Also, unless you come up with a mechanism, death can't really be caused by a combination of many things. Any medical examiner will look for what actually ended the viability of the organism, traceable to one physiological cause.
I was hoping actually to be a controversial and particularly topical so that Jacob would weigh in.
If anyone would know, perhaps he could tell me if there is actually a doctrinal or other type of preference for that particular reading of the crucifiction (that Christ didn't actually die because he was subject to an external implement of death).
I was actually unaware that there seems to be a precedent for that in the church, rather than just a particular way to look at things among choices.
I am sure there is probably something that I don't know that I am not factoring in, such as some or other GA having said it or it being consistent with some other doctrine or view of God, whatever.
And I repeat, I am NOT a theologian. I know Jacob has written a lot of in depth articles and whatnot on the various issues involved, and I am just spouting off.
Of course I would love it if ANYONE commented, of course, as usual, even if it to not agree.
Can't guarantee that I will immediately capitlate to whatever point is challenged, but it will be done in good will and basically in the interest of having my idea of a good time.
I don't actually HAVE many of the strong opinions that I argue for, but the reason that I do it is that it is often instructive to argue for something as vigorously as possible because that is the way that various weaknesses in my opinions show up. If I keep my opinions away from contrarian views, I would't ever know about the downsides and flaws are, and that means not going forward and going on to better and better ways to look at things, and good ways to look at things are always good, I figure.
So I hope everyone knows that if I defend something I have said vigorously it is all in good fun and for the point of the logical exercise, not to mention to try to learn from the rest of you that obvioulsy have lots of good ideas and ways to see the world, too.
I would even love for other people than my family to chip in if you happen to find this. I haven't devoted much time to getting traffic to this blog and am not sure I want to.
I try to keep my publicish views on Helium where I have a more public face on things. But that doesn't mean that I would't like to hear from anyone stopping by.
Post a Comment