![]() Despite Strauss’ criticisms of Christianity, he was highly critical of this naturalistic theory. ![]() For example, attempting to explain Jesus’ resurrection naturally, many rationalist thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries put forward the theory that Jesus only appeared to die on the cross. He was a fierce opponent of orthodox Christianity but was also agitated by rationalist attempts to explain away New Testament accounts too simplistically. Strauss (1808–1874) was a highly influential German theologian in the 19th century. 3 This article surveys a broad range of medical and scholarly views regarding Jesus’ experience on the cross, concluding that asphyxiation or asphyxiation-dominant theories have emerged as the consensus position regarding the cause of Jesus’ death.ĭavid F. The manner of Jesus’ death remains a subject of controversy in the medical profession. The Gospels, then, can provide important historical sources regarding Jesus’ crucifixion as well as the practice of Roman execution. Although a subject of academic inquiry, the Gospel accounts are still utilized in order to provide consistent historical and archaeological information concerning the culture and history of the ancient world. This form of torture would become synonymous with the Roman Empire and, ultimately, the founding of Christianity and its subsequent branches. 2 Crucifixions were usually reserved for criminals and political revolutionaries. In the ancient world, crucifixion was viewed as the worst and lowest punishment that could be bestowed upon a non-Roman citizen. Given the wide variety of ways in which crucifixion can be carried out, the method of crucifixion largely depended upon the executioners and circumstances. ![]() It is quite likely that different individuals died from different physiological causes, and we would expect that the orientation in which they were crucified would be crucial in this respect.” 1 After providing a representative sampling of different theories, they concluded, “There is insufficient evidence to safely state exactly how people did die from crucifixion in Roman times. In 2006, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine published an article by Matthew Maslen and Piers Mitchell that examined different medical theories on the causes of death by crucifixion. A table maps these results, summarizing for those in the medical field as well as historians and theologians what medical professionals consider to be the cause of Jesus’ death. Second, and more importantly, the survey results show that, perhaps less similar to crucifixion in general, there is a growing consensus regarding Jesus’ cause of death by medical professionals. First, it provides a rich resource of different medical opinions regarding the effects of Jesus’ crucifixion. ![]() Two features of this article are significant. This article surveys a broad range of medical and other specialist views regarding Jesus’ experience on the cross, concluding that asphyxiation or asphyxiation-dominant theories have emerged as the consensus position regarding the cause of Jesus’ death. ![]() Forensic pathologists and clinicians have argued for several hypotheses concerning Jesus’ death, including pulmonary embolism, cardiac rupture, suspension trauma, asphyxiation, fatal stab wound, and shock. Yet for centuries, the manner of Jesus’ death has remained a subject of controversy in academic and medical circles. The death of Jesus Christ remains a pivotal moment in world history and a symbol of love, mercy, and courage across the globe. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |