NationStates Jolt Archive

Have a look st this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4075936.stm


Jesus may have died from a blood clot in his lungs, Israeli doctors believe.

Dr Benjamin Brenner from Rambam Medical Centre bases his theory on New Testament and contemporary religious sources about the crucifixion.

He believes Jesus developed a deep vein thrombosis in his legs while nailed to the cross, which then travelled from his legs to his lungs and killed him. ...

Yeah, I read that. They're basing it on people from galilee in modern times having higher incidence of the disease than the norm.. it doesn't really mean much.

Crucifixion is basically death by asphyxiation as you can't use your legs to press your body upward to get a decent breath of air. Either the suffucation got him, or this I believe

Well it beats the usual way a crucifixion victim died. You see, the way they were nailed to the cross, they had to pull themselves up (scrapping their already whipped raw backs on the cross as they went), draw a breath and then collapse back sown, unable to draw breath again until you dragged yourself back up. This usually led to death in three or four days from a combination of blood loss, exhaustion and something to do with the chest cavity collapsing. God spared Jesus the worst of the crucifixion by allowing him to die rather quickly in one final shout of "it is finished."

its interesting. that would explain it, but the point is he sacrificed himself for us all. The ultimate sacrifice is for a person to give their life to save another.

Interesting.

However, I do have mention that the passage of the Bible wherein it is implied that "Jesus died for our sins", is probably a mistranslation.

Its actual meaning is more akin to "Jesus died BECUASE of our sins."

However, the idea of the martyrical sacrifce is more in keeping with the Christian mindset, and I doubt any of them will ever undertand that.

that would make sense as they Crucified him against the norm to keep him alive longer right?

I think it's more likely that he died from BEING NAILED TO A BIG WOODEN CROSS. :rolleyes: sheesh, who cares?

its interesting. that would explain it, but the point is he sacrificed himself for us all. The ultimate sacrifice is for a person to give their life to save another.

No it isn't. The ultimate sacrifice is for a person to incur the hatred of everyone they love for someone else.

Think about it. Would you prefer to be dead and honoured, or to have to live with hate for years on end? To be out of here - oblivion or eternal life - or to be shunned for the rest of your life?

Being anti-death-penalty can have its cruel side too.

personally i think that 2 die and be honoured is better coz sumtimes u can only change things by dying for what u believe in.

From the article:
That study found that before his crucifixion, Jesus went 12 hours without food or water, was under intense emotional stress and was beaten and forced to walk to the crucifixion site carrying the heavy cross beam of the cross on which he was killed.
I wonder if they'll let me borrow their time machine at some point.

Perhaps instead of the word "found," they should use the word, "speculated," instead, hmmm?

From the article:

I wonder if they'll let me borrow their time machine at some point.

Perhaps instead of the word "found," they should use the word, "speculated," instead, hmmm?


That wont happen.

You cant tell someone who fully believes the dogma that God's Will = "maybe".
They wont even consider it.

From the article:

I wonder if they'll let me borrow their time machine at some point.

Perhaps instead of the word "found," they should use the word, "speculated," instead, hmmm?

Actually, you can derive that from the accounts of the bible and the information on the Romans judical system that we have. The accounts in the bible are very detailed regarding that day, and Roman customs are more than just well researched, so it should be no problem really determining exactly how long the process was, what kind of treatment Jesus would have undergone etc.

Actually, you can derive that from the accounts of the bible and the information on the Romans judical system that we have. The accounts in the bible are very detailed regarding that day, and Roman customs are more than just well researched, so it should be no problem really determining exactly how long the process was, what kind of treatment Jesus would have undergone etc.


The romans in that area crucified quite a number of people in those days, and the odds that someone named "Jesus" or whatever the Aremaic equivalent is, is not hard to believe.

However, you cannot accept religious texts as historical fact.
To say that a bias exists within them is an understatement.

its interesting. that would explain it, but the point is he sacrificed himself for us all. The ultimate sacrifice is for a person to give their life to save another.

So if someone were to request to be euthanised and let his/her organs be used for transplantation, that would be laudable in Christian doctrine ?

The pro-euthanasia lobby will be pleased ;)

I do wonder.. are there no medical records from that time ? The Greek and Romans did have a fair knowledge of the human anatomy; surely they performed autopsies on crucified people every now and then ?

The romans in that area crucified quite a number of people in those days, and the odds that someone named "Jesus" or whatever the Aremaic equivalent is, is not hard to believe.

However, you cannot accept religious texts as historical fact.
To say that a bias exists within them is an understatement.

I wouldn't take anything from the old testament for a fact, certainly not. But you can use the accounts the bible gives about Jesus as a basis for further investigation. I don't take them literally, but if I find the details of Jesus' crucifiction to be coherent with the Roman customs at the time, I will accept them as highly probable, if not fact.

The bible is a religious book, and while that doesn't make the accounts 100% true, it doesn't mean that all of it is a lie, either. Especially regarding the death of Jesus you will find that all 4 evangelists took great care in getting the details as accurate as possible.

So if someone were to request to be euthanised and let his/her organs be used for transplantation, that would be laudable in Christian doctrine ?

The pro-euthanasia lobby will be pleased ;)

I do wonder.. are there no medical records from that time ? The Greek and Romans did have a fair knowledge of the human anatomy; surely they performed autopsies on crucified people every now and then ?

I don't think autopsies were as common then as they are now. For all I know, there are no medical records of Jesus at all. According to the bible, they wouldn't have had much time to perform that autopsy anyway, as the corpse disappeared at one point (resurected or stolen is up for discussion)

I wouldn't take anything from the old testament for a fact, certainly not. But you can use the accounts the bible gives about Jesus as a basis for further investigation. I don't take them literally, but if I find the details of Jesus' crucifiction to be coherent with the Roman customs at the time, I will accept them as highly probable, if not fact.

The bible is a religious book, and while that doesn't make the accounts 100% true, it doesn't mean that all of it is a lie, either. Especially regarding the death of Jesus you will find that all 4 evangelists took great care in getting the details as accurate as possible.


No they didnt.

We are meant to believe that Jesus was nailed through his hands, when certainly, human hands would not be strong enough to support his body weight if large iron nails were pounded through them.
Crucifixions were done through the wrists.

Also..the ressurection business is fairly hard to swallow, but thats another thread.

No they didnt.

We are meant to believe that Jesus was nailed through his hands, when certainly, human hands would not be strong enough to support his body weight if large iron nails were pounded through them.
Crucifixions were done through the wrists.

Also..the ressurection business is fairly hard to swallow, but thats another thread.

Through the hands is possible, provided the victim is of average size and the ropes are properly secured. One skeleton has been found pierced through the wrists, but hands are possible on a live victim with the standard footpiece on the cross. The study that concluded that through the hands wasn't possible was done only on corpses, which hang straight down and put all the weight on the hands, not live people whose weight would be adjusted differently.

No they didnt.

We are meant to believe that Jesus was nailed through his hands, when certainly, human hands would not be strong enough to support his body weight if large iron nails were pounded through them.
Crucifixions were done through the wrists.

Also..the ressurection business is fairly hard to swallow, but thats another thread.

That's what wikipedia has to say :


For the sake of expediency, the victim was probably affixed to the cross by ropes, nails, or some combination of the two. In popular depictions of crucifixion (possibly derived from a literal reading of the translated description in the Gospel of John, of Jesus' wounds being "in the hands"), the victim is shown supported only by nails driven straight through the feet and the palms of the hands. However, the flesh of the hands cannot support a person's body weight, so some other means must have been used to support most of the weight, such as tying the wrists to the cross beam.

Another possibility, that does not require tying, is that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna). The nails could also be driven through the wrist, in a space between four carpal bones (which is the location shown in the Shroud of Turin). As some historians have suggested, the Gospel words that are translated as "hands" may have in fact included everything below the mid-forearm. Another possibility, suggested by Frederick Zugibe, is that the nails may have been driven in on an angle, entering in the palm in the crease that delineates the bulky region at the base of the thumb, and exiting in the wrist, passing through the carpal tunnel.

As far as I know, there is no description in the bible as to how exactly Christ was affixed to the cross, the only reference are the wounds "on his hands". That doesn't exclude the possibility that he was also tied to the cross and that the nails simply were used to torture him further.

Through the hands is possible, provided the victim is of average size and the ropes are properly secured. One skeleton has been found pierced through the wrists, but hands are possible on a live victim with the standard footpiece on the cross. The study that concluded that through the hands wasn't possible was done only on corpses, which hang straight down and put all the weight on the hands, not live people whose weight would be adjusted differently.


Link?

Source?

What study?

Interesting.

However, I do have mention that the passage of the Bible wherein it is implied that "Jesus died for our sins", is probably a mistranslation.

Its actual meaning is more akin to "Jesus died BECUASE of our sins."

However, the idea of the martyrical sacrifce is more in keeping with the Christian mindset, and I doubt any of them will ever undertand that.

Could you quote the verse in the Greek that says that? I imagine you're referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3 - in the greek it says (I have my Greek new testament here to check) υπερ των αμαρτιων , which can mean 'on account of' OR 'for'. Besides, not only are there many Greek texts in which many words will be used (so no version is 'definitive'), and also the two understandings are not mutually exclusive - 'on account of' means both Jesus died because we sinned, i.e. if we had not sinned he need not have died, and that Jesus died to pay for our sins. The bible elaborates on this elsewhere - saying that we have a 'martyr complex' isn't helping anyone.

Link?

Source?

What study?

Pierre Barbet's study. And the single known specimen of a recovered crucifixion victim.. he/she (probably he) was nailed through the heel and had scrapes on the inner wrist, possibly meaning he was nailed through the wrist.. but that's a single specimen out of probably tens of thousands who died that way, and my guess is, for time's sake, and because the average Roman soldier didn't have an anatomy degree, rope was normally used, and nails were stuck through the hands to prevent others from removing the victim.

I don't think autopsies were as common then as they are now. For all I know, there are no medical records of Jesus at all.

Even if there were, the texts would almost certainly not have survived.

Let's not forget that the Bible was first transcribed in the 4th Century AD, and has been subsequently retranscribed and retranscribed.



And before any religious zealots start trying to nail me up, I'm purely saying that there is no guarantee that anything in the Bible, Old or New Testament, is fact. The Roman Catholic Church was more a political organisation even as late as C12 (and possibly later) than a religious body; vestiges of this are found in French History in C10-12 quite clearly.

Even if there were, the texts would almost certainly not have survived.

Let's not forget that the Bible was first transcribed in the 4th Century AD, and has been subsequently retranscribed and retranscribed.



And before any religious zealots start trying to nail me up, I'm purely saying that there is no guarantee that anything in the Bible, Old or New Testament, is fact. The Roman Catholic Church was more a political organisation even as late as C12 (and possibly later) than a religious body; vestiges of this are found in French History in C10-12 quite clearly.

The John Rylands manuscript dates from 125 AD... not quite 400 years, especially since the apostles were still around intil approx. 60 AD.

Pierre Barbet's study. And the single known specimen of a recovered crucifixion victim.. he/she (probably he) was nailed through the heel and had scrapes on the inner wrist, possibly meaning he was nailed through the wrist.. but that's a single specimen out of probably tens of thousands who died that way, and my guess is, for time's sake, and because the average Roman soldier didn't have an anatomy degree, rope was normally used, and nails were stuck through the hands to prevent others from removing the victim.


From what we know today, there were usually guards posted.
So having someone anyone remove victim was probably not an issue.

I believe its simply a matter of weight.
The hand doesnt have enough solid connective tissue, nor any bones that would support much weight at all.
Some of the strongest bones in the human body can snap with only 9 lbs of pressure.
Certainly, even with a footpiece, there would be more than 9 pounds.
Further, I also suspect rope was only used to restrain the victim until the nails were in place.

The only real logical answer is that the nails were placed between the radius and the ulna, just below the wrist, or even through the wrist itself.

The only real logical answer is that the nails were placed between the radius and the ulna, just below the wrist, or even through the wrist itself.

This, however, would defy the principle of crucifiction. Crucifiction was desinged to be extremely slow and painful, and accroding to Roman records and accounts, it was. Dying could take days.
If you drive a nail through the wrist of the victim it is very easy to seriously damage the arteries, which in turn would lead to a death within hours, if not minutes.
There is evidence that it has been done, but I doubt that it would have been the standard way to do crucify convicts.

From what we know today, there were usually guards posted.
So having someone anyone remove victim was probably not an issue.

I believe its simply a matter of weight.
The hand doesnt have enough solid connective tissue, nor any bones that would support much weight at all.
Some of the strongest bones in the human body can snap with only 9 lbs of pressure.
Certainly, even with a footpiece, there would be more than 9 pounds.
Further, I also suspect rope was only used to restrain the victim until the nails were in place.

The only real logical answer is that the nails were placed between the radius and the ulna, just below the wrist, or even through the wrist itself.

I dunno. The one specimen we have has scratches on the wrist, and that's the only concrete evidence there is. "Destot's space" and the "thenar furrow" are the two strongest points in the hand, but neither have been tested. Also, the crucified remains were found nailed sideways through the heel, meaning the body would hang off to one side.. that variable also hasn't been tested.. I honestly think the nailing of the wrists and feet were more ornamental than practical, with the rope doing most of the work, and the nails just making the guards' job easier.. less fidgeting. Some did survive crucifixion, supposedly.. so maybe nails weren't used at all, if escape was possible.

I dunno. The one specimen we have has scratches on the wrist, and that's the only concrete evidence there is. "Destot's space" and the "thenar furrow" are the two strongest points in the hand, but neither have been tested. Also, the crucified remains were found nailed sideways through the heel, meaning the body would hang off to one side.. that variable also hasn't been tested.. I honestly think the nailing of the wrists and feet were more ornamental than practical, with the rope doing most of the work, and the nails just making the guards' job easier.. less fidgeting. Some did survive crucifixion, supposedly.. so maybe nails weren't used at all, if escape was possible.


But if you used that much rope, or tied it with the intent of taking the pressure off of the nails, then that would lend support to the persons upper body, wich would take the pressure off of the diaphragm.
Slow asphyxiation and immense torture while you wait to die is the goal.

it doesn't matter where exactly he was nailed, it doesn't prove or disprove the Bible.

And according to Wikpidea, both hands and wrists were possible. So looks like you're all argueing a pointless point :p

it doesn't matter where exactly he was nailed, it doesn't prove or disprove the Bible.

And according to Wikpidea, both hands and wrists were possible. So looks like you're all argueing a pointless point :p

It could help disprove some claims of stigmata though.. that's something, I guess.

It could help disprove some claims of stigmata though.. that's something, I guess.


Excellent point.

The atheist in me agrees and says "It would dissprove Stigata becuase all stigmatists develop wounds on the palms, not the wrists, so if indeed crucifixtions were done on the wrists, then these people are liars."

The pessimist in me would like to add:

"Ehh...its probably pyscho-somatic anyhow."

The bitter realist says "Ehh...theyre all making it up anyway."

Excellent point.

The atheist in me agrees and says "It would dissprove Stigata becuase all stigmatists develop wounds on the palms, not the wrists, so if indeed crucifixtions were done on the wrists, then these people are liars."

The pessimist in me would like to add:

"Ehh...its probably pyscho-somatic anyhow."

The bitter realist says "Ehh...theyre all making it up anyway."

I think it's psycho-somatic. Some people's beliefs cause them to have stigmata, which of course will occur where the affected believes they should occur.

I have to admit that I find this phenomenon both fascinating and troubling.
On the one hand, these people have a mind that can actually cause their body to disfunction in such a way as to display stigmata, which in itself is absolutely amazing. Imagine the sheer willpower of belief like that...
On the other hand, these people tend to be fanatic in their beliefs, otherwise their stigmata would not be possible in the first place. And I tend to be very very careful indeed with religious fanatists of any flavour.

But then again, stigmata are nothing else than a physical expression of a person's devotion and belief, they neither prove nor disprove Jesus' crucifiction nor the theory of his resurection.

I don't think autopsies were as common then as they are now. For all I know, there are no medical records of Jesus at all. According to the bible, they wouldn't have had much time to perform that autopsy anyway, as the corpse disappeared at one point (resurected or stolen is up for discussion)

It didn't have to be Jesus - thousands of people were crucified. Cutting a few of them open afterwards to perform an autopsy seems quite a logical action.. after all, one needs dead bodies.

I think it's psycho-somatic. Some people's beliefs cause them to have stigmata, which of course will occur where the affected believes they should occur.

In any case, not even stigmatics are consistent.. some bleed from the wrists, others from the hands.. so even conclusive proof of Roman habits wouldn't solve it, unless it were proved no nail at all were used, but I think that's only an outside chance.

I think it's psycho-somatic. Some people's beliefs cause them to have stigmata, which of course will occur where the affected believes they should occur.

I have to admit that I find this phenomenon both fascinating and troubling.
On the one hand, these people have a mind that can actually cause their body to disfunction in such a way as to display stigmata, which in itself is absolutely amazing. Imagine the sheer willpower of belief like that...
On the other hand, these people tend to be fanatic in their beliefs, otherwise their stigmata would not be possible in the first place. And I tend to be very very careful indeed with religious fanatists of any flavour.

But then again, stigmata are nothing else than a physical expression of a person's devotion and belief, they neither prove nor disprove Jesus' crucifiction nor the theory of his resurection.

I agree.

I do firmly believe that the human mind is capable of mcuh more than we know, and the stigmata, I believe, is proof of that.
The ability to cuase open wounds in ones hands due to religious fervor is highly interesting and rather amazing.
Also, pretty scary.

Much of my biblical and religious knowledge comes from watching documentaries on the subject, even though Im an atheist.
Most people who develop the stigmata are in a sense, "Zealots" or fanatical in thier devotion.

It always amuses me that the word "cross" comes form the Latin word for torture, and now it is the symbol of Christianity.

The real story behind it all was lost in the great texts lost when the library at Alexandria was destroyed, and i personally think that the stoy is a metorphor or allegory, with the point being more important than the "facts".

As for the original post, didn't the dirty great sword thust into the ribs do the trick?!!!

It always amuses me that the word "cross" comes form the Latin word for torture, and now it is the symbol of Christianity.

The real story behind it all was lost in the great texts lost when the library at Alexandria was destroyed, and i personally think that the stoy is a metorphor or allegory, with the point being more important than the "facts".

You do realise that this happend in 47 BC? BEFORE the events in the bible actually happened?


As for the original post, didn't the dirty great sword thust into the ribs do the trick?!!!

First of all, it wasn't a sword, but a spear, many believe it to be this spear :
http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page477.html

Second, that spear was used by a Roman soldier to see if Jesus was dead already, which he was at that point.

Killed by a blood clot? Silly people, everyone knows Jesus was killed but a vengeful time-traveling scientist.

Well, in LAtin America they Crucify people every year. Don't worry they are psychos who volunteer for it. But they only nail their hands. And yes they really nail these crazies.

But, I think they nailed BOTH his hands AND wrists (and feet).

And he WAS dead before the spear incident.

You do realise that this happend in 47 BC? BEFORE the events in the bible actually happened?


Ahh well maybe. But of course dates around that time are sketchy at best so noone really knows when it happened, or even when the cruxifiction actually happened. One theory is that it was caused by early christians to subvert the real story, and to take over the new faith. (source The Hiram Key, Knight and Lomas)

First of all, it wasn't a sword, but a spear, many believe it to be this spear :
http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page477.html

Yeah. Silly me i knew it was a spear, I just spelled it sword.

Second, that spear was used by a Roman soldier to see if Jesus was dead already, which he was at that point.

To be honest I read somewhere (and was taught at school) that the spear was used to kill him quicker, which was indeed against all prodceedure of the Roman execution. But I could be wrong, and indeed this is the point of many of the posts in this thread. There is so much claim and counter claim that the word "fact" cannot be used as there is so little historical documents still available. One book i have read, says that in history so much can be known about someone by what their enemies say about them, and there is little or no texts about his history from enemies at the time (romans, Jews etc).

He was already dead when He was periced with the spear. He was stabed to check to see if He was still alive or not, as per standard Roman procedure.

Ahh well maybe. But of course dates around that time are sketchy at best so noone really knows when it happened, or even when the cruxifiction actually happened.

On the contrary, dates around this time are dates just as today. The Roman year and calender was in contiuous use until Pope Gregor XIII reformed it in 1582. The Romans counted years not in BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domine) as we do today, but ab urbe condita (from the founding of the city of Rome) 753 BC.

The bible states that Jesus was born when the Emperor Augustus had ordered a counting of all his subjects. We know the date of that through Roman accounts and archives. The Romans also reported the infanticde ordered by Herodes, a Jewish king who was left in office but without power by the Romans in an attempt to better control their Hebrew subjects.
Jesus was judged by Pontius Pilatus, the Roman governor in Judea, Romans records show that he had that post from 26 to 36 AD.
Don't underestimate the Romans, they were a shining example to burocracy even to today's standarts.

Yes, we actually ARE a few years off in counting our calendar after the birth of Jesus. But that wasn't the early Christians fault, as they simply went along with the calendar already in exaistance and widely accepted, it was a mistake that happened during the calendar reform under Pope Gregor XIII. You can verify this by comparing it to the old Russian calendar, as the orthodox church never accepted a calendar derived by a Roman Catholic church. Russia accepted the new calendar in 1918.

To be honest I read somewhere (and was taught at school) that the spear was used to kill him quicker, which was indeed against all prodceedure of the Roman execution.

No. Crucifiction was the worst, really the worst punishment the Romans ever had. In fact, it was so gruesome that Roman law didn't allow Roman citizens to be crucified, only slaves and people from occupied countries were to be executed that way. It was extremely slow, it took days, if the convict was healthy and fit it could take weeks for them to die in agony. Roman procedure certainly didn't include quick death for the crucified...

Have a look st this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4075936.stm

No it was me...yep...i was one of his disciples..got bored..decided to go solo....next year after my tour with the jazz musicians the free wise men, i discover jesus and the other lot have taken all the glory for stuff i worked equally hard at...in short i left before they were famous..so one day i am sitting on the curb with a bottle of whiskey and i see this chariot go past and would you beleive it? jesus was sitting in between john and mark...so i take out my pilum and hurl it..killing him...i get arrested and do 50 years for GBH...thats what really happened...i swear

that's why it was such a big thing when Spartcus crusified a Roman soilder

I'm a big fan of the gold poisioning theroy. Who has heard of this one. Jesus actually didn't die on the cross. The wine he was given to drink was laced with flecks of gold which thinned his blood. When he was stabbed it appeared he bled much more then he really did. Everyone assumed he was dead took him down & buried him. The gold eventually killed him. However he came to & seemed to have risen from the dead. i can't find the site i saw the article at bu I will post it at another time.

No it was me...yep...i was one of his disciples..got bored..decided to go solo....next year after my tour with the jazz musicians the free wise men, i discover jesus and the other lot have taken all the glory for stuff i worked equally hard at...in short i left before they were famous..so one day i am sitting on the curb with a bottle of whiskey and i see this chariot go past and would you beleive it? jesus was sitting in between john and mark...so i take out my pilum and hurl it..killing him...i get arrested and do 50 years for GBH...thats what really happened...i swear


bump! come on people!

I'm a big fan of the gold poisioning theroy. Who has heard of this one. Jesus actually didn't die on the cross. The wine he was given to drink was laced with flecks of gold which thinned his blood. When he was stabbed it appeared he bled much more then he really did. Everyone assumed he was dead took him down & buried him. The gold eventually killed him. However he came to & seemed to have risen from the dead. i can't find the site i saw the article at bu I will post it at another time.

That's an interesting theory.

That is all I really came into this thread to say

*teeters uncomfortably..*

*walks out and closes the door*

I'm a big fan of the gold poisioning theroy. Who has heard of this one. Jesus actually didn't die on the cross. The wine he was given to drink was laced with flecks of gold which thinned his blood. When he was stabbed it appeared he bled much more then he really did. Everyone assumed he was dead took him down & buried him. The gold eventually killed him. However he came to & seemed to have risen from the dead. i can't find the site i saw the article at bu I will post it at another time.

I never heard about that theory before... why would gold thin the blood? It actually is edible (in a way), you can sometimes find it as decoration on really really posh chocolates. I think it's especially Arabian counrties were rich people like to decorate their food with gold leaf.

But I did hear the theory that he actually wasn't dead when he was taken off the cross (after all, he only stayed there for a few hours, not days as would have been the norm), he was just anabiotic. He came to two days later and left the grave.
I also heard about the conspiracy theory that all this was a planned manoeuver, that the apostles were in on it and actually helped him out of the grave. That is a bit hard to believe though, as with the medical knowledge of the time it would have been difficult to obtain medication/poison that would make a person seem dead for a day or two.

I don't know about this conspiracy, but the anabiotic-theory makes the most sense to me.

here's my problem with that.

If you count out devine intervention, which you obviously do if you are looking for a altrernative solution, what are the chances that the guy who claimed he was ganna rise from the dead would have the good fortuine to go anabiotic and come to a couple days latter in the tomb, and be able to just walk away?

Also, there was a massive rock and guards posted by the tomb. No one who just survived a crusifixion and hasn't eaten or drank anything in days, plus was beaten and all before he was even put on the cross, and just woke up after 2 or 3 days, he wouldn't have been able to move the giant stone. Plus, there was a guard detail posted.

So I don't really see the anabiotic theory as a viable one.

here's my problem with that.

If you count out devine intervention, which you obviously do if you are looking for a altrernative solution, what are the chances that the guy who claimed he was ganna rise from the dead would have the good fortuine to go anabiotic and come to a couple days latter in the tomb, and be able to just walk away?

Also, there was a massive rock and guards posted by the tomb. No one who just survived a crusifixion and hasn't eaten or drank anything in days, plus was beaten and all before he was even put on the cross, and just woke up after 2 or 3 days, he wouldn't have been able to move the giant stone. Plus, there was a guard detail posted.

So I don't really see the anabiotic theory as a viable one.

Well, as I said the theory goes hand in hand with the poison theory, claiming that he took poison the would turn him anabiotic for a while.
However, this theory also claims that at least some of the apostles were in on the trick and staged the whole "risen from the dead" part.
In my eyes it's just way to elaborate for the time.

It would make more sense that the corpse disappeared one way or another and a nice mysterious story was fabricated around it, helping the cause of spreading Jesus' teaching.