The fact is, our claim is that if the body of a dead person is pierced, no blood should flow. The flow of blood, particularly if it is active flow and not a passive flow, that positively indicates life. Now in the Bible the incident has been described by two words. In some versions you read the blood flowed, the blood rushed out. In some it is rushed out and in some others it is gushed out, gushed forth or gushed forth, yes. Now these words gushed and rushed indicate active flow of blood which cannot happen unless the heart were beating.
Without that it’s not possible and this argument is acceptable to the knowledgeable people of today. We held a conference on the deliverance of the cross in which one of the top medical, I mean it was not a surgeon I think, was it a surgeon or a physician? A physician. A physician spoke on this subject and when he spoke on this subject he also solved some other enigmas which are connected with this problem. But before I begin to describe that I should like to understand the whole thing, how it happened and what are the objections and difficulties. Some Christians claim that even if he was not dead, when his body was pierced it was always the intention to pierce the heart.
So from down upwards his heart must have got pierced and if he were not dead before he would die, he would have died at that time. So even if blood gushed out, the pierce might have done the trick. This is the full argument as presented by some Christians. Now this argument should be treated in two ways. Number one, we are talking of the authority of Bible, one should get, one should restrict to that authority. Bible is categorically claiming that he gave up the ghost. If he gave up the ghost then this is wrong, that blood rushed out. And these two statements become contradictory and the whole thing becomes confused and unreliable to say the least.
So there is no evidence from the Bible that he died upon the cross. The only evidence they have is this, that one of those who were present according to the claimant and there is no in fact eyewitness account. In fact this statement of the Bible has now been challenged by the scholars as a later day addition. And the true scholars of Christianity who have investigated in these things, they claim that this part has not been claimed by every epistle, every apostle. By some it is claimed those who did not know Jesus Christ and who were not themselves eyewitnesses. And the latest research shows that no eyewitness ever said this, that he gave up the ghost. So if you are confining your discussion to the biblical statements, don’t shift your load to other ways of argument.
First finish with this argument then we’ll come to that. Now within the four walls of biblical statements, this statement is proved positively wrong that he gave up the ghost. Because according to the version of the same Bible which claims that he gave up the ghost, when his body was pierced, blood gushed out or rushed forth or rushed out or whatever it is. So he was alive and the first statement is belied. Now whether he must have died by the wound of the pierce, I mean what would you call it, spear, lance, the lance of the word, yes, by the wound of the lance or not, this aspect has been spoken upon by the medical professionalist, what was his name you remember? He’s a medical authority of some renown who spoke on the subject of deliverance of Jesus Christ from cross. Well anyway, the argument is valid.
So whether he is an authority or not that is in fact not as important as the argument itself. He drew the picture of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as it has been handed down to us through generations. And he also claimed and said this is a repeatable experiment. Hold someone in that position and let him hang. His body would rise and his relationship of the heart to the surrounding body would change. And according to the statements he was pierced here by the lance. And he made the direct line and said it is not possible by any means for that lance to have pierced the heart in that position. So whatever came out of the body was not the bleeding of the heart but other bleeding of the arteries or some other bleeding. And secondly if he had bled at that if we had the heart had been pierced and it was beating this is why the blood rushed out. Then he should have died there and there should have been some symptoms of his cry or death or some indication that it was the that moment when he died.
So either way this claim is proved to be wrong. On the biblical authority I mean. On the authority of the New Testament. The only claim is that they saw him, gave up the ghost and the next chapter tells you that in reality he didn’t give up the ghost because when his body was pierced blood rushed out. So at least by that time he was alive. So the Bible contradicts itself. At least. And if you find a compromise between the two statements this is the compromise. That he had never died and did not die even afterwards. He was saved with a purpose. And that purpose is also mentioned in the Bible that he had prayed to God and God listened to him. To save this cup of death from him. To save him from the cup of death. And also there is evidence that if somebody, I mean this is a medical evidence, that if somebody goes into a stone a casual observer or even an intent observer from outside is not in a position to declare that he’s dead.
You have to make certain investigations and you have to examine the body. A person going into stone would behave exactly like the same as a person dying. He would drop his head in the same manner. So it is not possible for an observer to declare that he gave up the ghost. It’s just a statement. So that statement if it is true but the present scholars say no it’s not a true statement. It was added, attributed to the Bible much later on. Maybe 200 years afterwards. But considering it to be a true statement still it’s no evidence.
