Why the BBC thinks Christ did not die this way

This is just to familiarize of the viewer of this blog with the research going on in the world on the topic “Jesus did not die on Cross”. Courtesy telegraph.co.uk, BBC and infospace.com.
Thanks everybody
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581838/Why-the-BBC-thinks-Christ-did-not-die-this-way.html

Why the BBC thinks Christ did not die this way

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:30AM GMT 18 Mar 2008
Previous
1 of 2 Images
Next

The traditional Christ on the cross, performed at an Easter Passion parade
With his arms outstretched, his legs straight and his hands nailed to the cross, it is the image of Jesus’s crucifixion held dear by Christians for centuries.

But now the producers of a BBC drama about Christ’s final days have challenged the traditional representation, saying they believe Jesus probably did not die that way.

Instead of portraying Christ with his arms out wide and his legs straight down, The Passion will show him nailed to the cross in a foetal position, with his arms above his head and nails through his arms – the way, the producers claim, he may well have been crucified by the Romans.

Leading theologians accused the BBC of “misleading” the public and said it was ignoring the Biblical account of the crucifixion. But the makers of The Passion insist their ideas are based on new historical evidence.

Simon Elliott, the production designer, claimed that they had tried to make the drama as “historically accurate” as possible.

“The Victorian image of Jesus doesn’t tie in with the historical evidence,” he said.
“He was probably put on a crude wooden gibbet and made to stand in a loose, foetal position. It was fiendishly designed.”

While acknowledging that his ideas are likely to upset Christians, Mr Elliott argued that the position so familiar to churchgoers was only one of a range of methods used by the Romans in crucifixions.
“It is a minefield, as everyone has such strong feelings about it. Our portrayal is based on lengthy research.” In particular, he said they had been influenced by the discovery of a crucified skeleton, which was found near Jerusalem in 1968 and is the only such archaeological find.

This led them to believe that Christ could well have been crucified on a T-shaped gibbet, with his arms above his head and his legs tucked up and under him so that his chest was crushed and he died of asphyxiation. Instead of having nails through his hands, they could have been driven through his arms.

The Passion has already proved controversial for appearing to exonerate Judas and Pontius Pilate for their roles in the Christ’s death.

But Mark Goodacre, associate professor of religion at Duke University, who advised the producers, defended the decision to put forward an alternative representation of the crucifixion. “The Romans used a number of ways to crucify people and this was one of the most common and effective methods,” he said.

“The makers wanted something that wasn’t the typical image that would surprise the viewers. This is not an attempt to be iconoclastic, but to get people to look again at the events surrounding his death.” He added that he thought the Bible did not actually explain in any detail the form of crucifixion employed.

Paula Gooder, a New Testament scholar, said that the traditional image had become important to Christians in understanding what the crucifixion was about.
“They have clearly decided to go for this option because it’s unusual and will jolt viewers and challenge them about their assumptions,” she said.
“Their portrayal causes a problem as it seems to ignore what the Bible says.”
In the Book of John, Jesus says to Thomas: “Put your finger here; see my hands.”
Dr Gooder, canon theologian at Birmingham Cathedral, said that the BBC’s version would change the image of Jesus “throwing his arms out in a symbol of love”.
She added: “There’s a lot of significance attached to the traditional image that has been lost in this version and is likely to upset those who don’t like a move away from what they’re used to.”

The Reverend George Curry, who is the chairman of the Church Society, said: “They are misleading people by distorting the facts.
“That’s a serious and dangerous thing to do, but sadly utterly predictable and regrettable. Jesus’s nails went through his hands, not his forearms. We should be true to history and the events that occurred.”

The Passion begins tonight on BBC1. The programme is to be broadcast in four episodes, culminating on Easter Sunday with the Resurrection

The BBC’s alternative crucifixion position

Jesus did not die on the cross? Okay…

Hi everybody!

Incidently or fortunately, I happened to visit the blog of one of my friends here, j2nice78. I did not know that some discussion was going on here on me and the subject of my interest. I want to share it with other friends.

I value his comments, and the comments on his comments by others; the same could be accessed at:
http://j2nice78.wordpress.com/

Jesus did not die on the cross? Okay…

Jesus did not die on the cross? Okay…
j2nice78 Says:
15Jul08

Recently I have had the displeasure of one blogger by the name of “paarsurrey” posting the same “Jesus did not die on the cross” line in multiple places on my blog without presenting any real evidence for this assertion.
This was the most recent comment this person made on my blog:

Hi
Jesus did not die on Cross, he survived a cursed death on Cross, so the notion invented by Paul that Jesus death on Cross atoned the sins of the sinners is wrong to start with. The sins of a person has no relationship whether Jesus had died on Cross or not.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
(They always sign their comments with this last bit of “I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim”)
Twice I have made the invitation to start a friendly dialogue with this person to refute this ridiculous claim and with no response, I finally decided to respond to this person at their own blogsite. This is what I said:

• j2nice78 Says:
July 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm

I have several problems with your assertion that Jesus never died on the cross.
Some of these reasons are better than others:
1. The Romans were professional executioners. They knew what they were doing. They beat Him to the point of collapse even BEFORE driving nails through his hands and feet and raising Him up on the cross. Even Pilate checked to make sure Jesus was dead. The reason they didn’t break His legs is because He was already dead.
2. Let’s forget religious writings for a minute and look at scientific writings – according to the March 21, 1986 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, three doctors including a pathologist had this to say:
“Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.”
3. Let’s assume everyone was wrong and Jesus was alive when he went into the tomb, how on earth would a man who was so badly injured and bleeding still be alive thirty-six hours later? He would have bled to death.
4. Even if by some miraculous feat He managed to survive the cross and three days in the tomb, how could someone in the condition He was in get up, unwrap himself, move the two-ton rock UPHILL away from the inside of the tomb, get by the guards unnoticed (who would have been killed for their incompetence), and then convince everyone that He had beaten death? Even if this had happened, He would have been in such bad condition everyone would have pitied Him not worshipped Him and tried to get Him medical help.
5. Multiple non-christian writers confirmed Jesus death, including Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, and the Jewish Talmud (which is not a Christianity-friendly source).
There is much more evidence than this against your claim, sir. These are just the first things to come to mind. Do you have any evidence to refute these claims other than what is said in the Quran? Do you believe it just because the Quran says so?
Let me be 100% clear here. I do not believe what the bible says just because it says it. I believe it because I have evaluated the evidence and have found it to consistent with what is contained in the bible.
Every religious writing in the world makes truth claims, that is why you have to look at evidence rather than just religious writings.
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein
I am a God-fearing peaceful Christian
Do you agree with my response?
________________________________________
16 Responses to “Jesus did not die on the cross? Okay…”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1. 1 mrakers on July 15, 2008 said:
Just FYI, he posted on my blog the EXACT same thing. It is spam. I unapproved the comment I believe.

2. 2 j2nice78 on July 15, 2008 said:
I suspected as much. Thank you mrakers!

3. 3 Zacharias on July 15, 2008 said:
To be fair, what he is saying is indeed a tenet of Islam, but he should be willing to engage you in dialogue if he’s going to go around positing it on people’s blogs for no reason.

4. 4 Zacharias on July 15, 2008 said:
Oh, and one more thing, you do make some strong physical arguments against His bodily death, but none of your points address the spiritual side of the issue or His harrowing of Hades, so if this spammer is trying to make a spiritual issue of it you might want to come up with some good arguments for that.

5. 5 j2nice78 on July 15, 2008 said:
Zacharias, thank you for your observation and you are absolutely correct. I have no problem whatsoever engaging this person in the spiritual aspects either. What I am hoping for is to finally get this person to stop spamming people and actually engage them.

6. 6 Sean on July 15, 2008 said:
This is great, i really like your point…how do you incorporate faith into your point.

7. 7 j2nice78 on July 15, 2008 said:
Thank you Sean for joining us. Excellent question!
Notice I said I don’t believe what is said in the bible JUST because it says it. I also believe because I have examined the evidence and found it to be consistent with what is contained in the bible.
Let’s talk science for a second before approaching the faith issue because this is important to understand. I have used this example before, but if you take the fact that we KNOW everyone dies. How do we know? Has anyone observed every single person who ever lived as having died? Nope. Maybe there is someone out there who will never die. It IS within the realm of possibility. We have, however, examined the available evidence and proved beyond REASONABLE DOUBT that everyone dies. This means we aren’t 100% sure. We are probably more like 99.9% sure. What is the other .01%? I’d say by the very definition of the word, it is FAITH.
Therefore, since we will probably never know everything, everything we believe and percieve to be true will be, to some degree, a matter of faith.
Here is how faith plays into my point: Since I have reason to believe what the bible says, then I have reason to believe that God is who He says He is. If this is true then I have FAITH that he will keep his promises.
I hope this answers your question Sean and I hope you come back and continue to ask these kinds of questions!

8. 8 j2nice78 on July 15, 2008 said:
I am the world’s worst at posting before proofreading by the way, so please forgive my grammatical errors.

9. 9 mrakers on July 15, 2008 said:
The Bible speaks way too much about faith for it to get that small of a percentage. When you look at Christianity from a logical standpoint, I can understand why some people are skeptical in today’s society, because atheism has presented “convincing” points, and media and everywhere else jumps on board.
With that said, everything you have presented is strong factual proof in my opinion. But faith is part of the Christian life. As Hebrews 11 says, it’s believing what you can’t see. If the evidence for God was that overwhelming, then there wouldn’t be the number of non-Christians on the planet that there are, but faith plays such a huge role.

10. 10 j2nice78 on July 15, 2008 said:
Thank you mrakers. I wasn’t trying to use that example to say that faith should always get that low of a percentage, it was an example nothing more, nothing less. I was simply trying to point out that anything we believe to be true in this life is going to take a certain amount of faith, some more, some less.
What I’m saying is that you are absolutely correct and I hope it didn’t seem like I was downplaying the importance of faith, because that was not the intent.
I appreciate your comments and look forward to hearing more from you!

11. 11 Danny on July 16, 2008 said:
You really should stop quoting Einstein to support your religion. He did not believe in a personal god and considered the Bible to be a collection of childish myths.

12. 12 j2nice78 on July 16, 2008 said:
Hey Danny, awesome to see you here! Finally someone that can offer some relevant debate on my blog!
I think the fact that Einstein felt that way is an awesome reason to quote him. He also believed that the available evidence pointed to a definite beginning for everything and that it had to have a cause, which troubled him deeply.

13. 13 Danny on July 25, 2008 said:
I don’t know of any evidence that it troubled him enough to make him turn to ancient myths. He had a respect and awe for the mysteries of the universe, and he called that feeling religion. That’s a very different thing from the religion that you practice. All I’m saying is, be familiar with what he actually thought before quoting him.

14. 14 j2nice78 on July 25, 2008 said:
If a quote is good and relevant, I don’t see what the source of the quote has to do with anything – unless the quote was a sarcastic jab at the subject in question. In this case it is not.
Besides, he never said God didn’t exist and that the bible wasn’t true, what he said at the end of his life was that (and this is paraphrase not a quote) he couldn’t prove God and the bible any more than he could prove his belief in “the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual”. He then followed that up with this phrase:
“The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap.”
In other words… all great discoveries require a leap of faith.
I am familiar with Einstein, but even if I wasn’t, there is no reason I shouldn’t be able to quote him just because our views are different. What are you really saying Danny, that if I didn’t like rock and roll music that I shouldn’t quote the rolling stones and say “You can’t always get what you want.” if I’m telling my kids no to something?

15. 15 Danny on July 28, 2008 said:
I’m saying that when Einstein uses the word “religion”, he means something very different by it than what you mean when you use it.

16. 16 j2nice78 on July 28, 2008 said:
I could accept that if by religion I meant Christianity. I mean religion as a whole and when he made that statement, if I’m not mistaken, that is what he was referring to as well.