PROOF JESUS DIED ON A CROSS

by Mary 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • Mary
    Mary

    WARNING: Some might find the descriptions here disturbing. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus died on a cross and not an upright state, the Organization still stubbornly clings to this feeble idea, siting of course, the ridiculous notion that, because the cross was a 'pagan symbol', Jesus couldn't have died on it. As if the Romans gave a damn that the cross was pagan. However, I found even more compelling evidence that Jesus died on a cross and not a stake. This article is taken in part from the Bible Review, April 1989:

    "...Since the 1920s, it has become common wisdom that victims of crucifixion die of asphyxiation when they lose the ability to raise the chest in order to breathe........The suggestion that crucifixion victims die as a result of asphyxiation was first made by A. A. LeBec in 1925. 1 LeBec theorized that the position of the crucified person on the cross, with the arms overhead, would immobilize the chest, making it difficult to breathe out. Thus, the person would suffocate. This was supported by R. W. Hynek in 1936. 2 It was, however, Dr. Pierre Barbet, a surgeon from Paris, who gave the theory widespread currency. In 1953 Barbet refined the theory and presented it in a very simple and believable way. 3 Barbet used three kinds of evidence to support his asphyxiation hypothesis, the most important of which was evidence from hangings in the Austro-German army during World War I, and in the Nazi concentration camp at Dachau during World War II. Barbet?s World War I evidence derived from observations of punishments in the Austro-German army. 4 Soldiers were strung up by their wrists with their feet barely raised off the ground. After a short time, violent contractions of all of the muscles occurred, causing severe muscle spasms. The tortured individual had extreme difficulty exhaling, and thus asphyxiation and death occurred in about ten minutes. Barbet reinforced this observation by using the World War II testimony of two prisoners from Dachau. 5 The prisoners reported that condemned men were hung by their hands with their feet some distance from the ground, requiring them to raise them-selves by their hands in order to exhale. The victim would continuously raise and drop his body until he became exhausted and succumbed to asphyxiation. Both observations by Barbet would support the crucifixion-asphyxiation hypothesis only if the arms of the crucified person were suspended directly above his head in supporting his body.But this is not the position of a person suspended from a cross. On the cross, a victim?s arms are extended at an angle of 60 to 70 degrees from the upright (stipes). If arms were extended directly above the head breathing would unquestionably be difficult, but not where the arms are extended at a 60 to 70 degree angle from vertical. This has now been demonstrated by several experimental studies. An Austrian radiologist, Hermann Moedder, 6 suspended medical students by their wrists with their hands above their heads, less than 40 inches apart on a horizontal bar. In a few minutes the students became pale and the vital capacity of their lungs decreased from 5.2 to 1.5 liters. Their respiration became shallow, blood pressure decreased and pulse rate increased. Moedder concluded that orthostatic collapse, or inability to breathe, would occur in six minutes if the students were not allowed to stand. If the students could rest for a few minutes, alternating with three minutes of hanging, they could last longer. Moedder?s results confirmed that asphyxiation would occur if the crucified person (cruciarius) were suspended by his hands directly above his head. If Jesus? arms had been suspended directly above his head, rather than extended at 60 to 70 degrees, then I would have no difficulty accepting the asphyxiation hypothesis as the cause of his death."

    So this medical study shows that if someone were to put to death on an upright stake, with their hands suspended above their head, like the WTS insists Jesus did, they would be dead in about 6 - 10 minutes from asphyxiation. However, Mark 15:25 & 34 tells us that it took Jesus about 6 hours to die, which is in keeping both with the historical evidence as well as the medical evidence given above. BTW, the study in the Bible Review was much longer, and far more graphic, so I didn't post it. If anyone is interested in reading the whole article, PM me. I would be very interested to see what kind of reply the Society would give when presented with the evidence above, that it would have been impossible for Jesus to survive on an upright stake for 6 hours.

  • love2Bworldly
    love2Bworldly

    Thanks for that info, definitely food for thought. I think the Society teaches the upright pole rather than the cross just so they can be different from other churches like so many of their bogus teachings.

  • carla
    carla

    I have showed my jw this same info long ago, made no difference. Why? Because the medical doctors and/or researchers were 'out to disprove the wt'. Doesn't matter if it were true or not. I think Jesus Himself could personally appear to each jw and tell them this (or any other false doctrine) and the jw would still run to wt's and org to see if it was 'right'.

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    Interesting information Mary, but no jw would accept it, although jesus was put to death at the orders of a Roman, and Rome was then very much a pagan society who used the cross as a form of execution.

    As has been said, the jws like to be differrent. This is a minor point, but I expect they would make a major issue of it if anyone tries to prove them wrong.

  • Mary
    Mary
    Because the medical doctors and/or researchers were 'out to disprove the wt'.

    Seeing as these studies were first done in the 1920s, when the Society still taught that Jesus died on a cross, they could hardly use this as a valid reason.........although their heads would probably spin around if they were confronted with that mind boggling news.

  • RR
    RR
    As if the Romans gave a damn that the cross was pagan

    Excuse me ... but weren't the Romans pagan?!!!!!!

    RR

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    The only reason the WT insists that Jesus died on a "stake" instead of a cross - is to remove any resemblance to what others churches teach. And thus "try" to convince everyone they are right or better or that they are more blessed than any other Christian group because they are the only ones who have the "truth". Rutherford did the same by ridding the org. of holiday celebrations and birthdays. Afterall if not for these things and a few other odd and unbiblical teachings - they would be just like any other religion. Which is of course, exactly what they are anyway!

    About the cross - the arguement either way about the stake/cross issue is really a non-issue. The JW's are the only ones who make it an issue. The important thing for most Christians is that Christ did die, was buried, and rose on the third day to immortal life. Thus opening the way for his future return, gathering of those "in Christ" , and restoration of all things. Lilly

  • Mary
    Mary
    About the cross - the arguement either way about the stake/cross issue is really a non-issue. The JW's are the only ones who make it an issue.

    You're absolutely right, which is why I did this thread. Witnesses will go to the ends of the earth to try and prove that Jesus did not die on a cross, but on an upright stake. To me, if we can present medical evidence proving that their doctrine is erroneous, it just might make at least a few of them stop and think......

  • carla
    carla

    Yes Mary I mentioned that little fact re: the time lines. Still doesn't matter, we are using the info to disprove the jw's and where did I hear about in the first place? Even if you had the thought yourself and wanted to check out what forensic medicine would say about it. Round and round you go. Now apparently one is not to look into any matter if you first got the idea from a non jw or (gasp) apostate site. The truth behind it doesn't matter. Should we expect any different from them? The truth can be scary for them when they have invested so much of their lives and thrown away so many loved ones.

  • Beardo
    Beardo

    This obvious forgery credited to Josephus may shed light on the matter:

    At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

    Whoever the forgers were (and nobody knows for sure) - even they indicate that a guy called Jesus was 'crucified' and most of us know that crucifixion involves that nasty Pagan cross.

    Surely these guys who shoehorned that into the texts would know better than a small group of individuals popping up in the late 19th century.

    But, of course, this is a mute point in reality as death is death however the person is killed, and as has already been stated - the JWs love to be separate from everything orthodox!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit