Thursday, February 26, 2015
Comment on this video regarding the apparent death argument:
The debaters comment on apparent death hypothesis at one point, but the rebuttal is 1)most scholars do not agree with apparent death? 2.) The romans were very good at killing and they seem to have verified that he was dead.
But this is simply not a sound counter-argument, the arguments brought indicating that even modern day physicians sometimes fail to discern true point of death was not elaborated upon and is far too strong to dismiss. It is not that they always don't properly do diagnosing procedures, it is that some people can have undetectable vital signs and still be alive and still fail most reasonable ways to verify death. So how could a roman soldier distinguish between someone having undetectable vital signs and someone truly dead? The answer is they can't, so they can't really verify that someone is truly dead at all.... their verification may as well not have occurred as it will always fail in these cases.
We also know that these undetectable vital signs can occur after seemingly fatal accidents and survival can occur without medical intervention(after all they were declared dead), and at the same time judging from the video it seems some people have survived being crucified for much longer periods of time, indicating that it is possible that should someone show undetectable vital signs early on in a crucifixion they could be erroneously declared dead and easily survive. Why most scholars would dismiss such a realistic possibility out of hand, is either due to ignorance of modern cases(which would also be erroneously verified as dead by romans), ignorance of the details( e.g. undetectable vital signs), or bias to presume that a supernatural explanation is much more likely than a natural one.