Thanatos's Theological Treatise #4

Reviewing good fare for the benefit of the Christian spiritual whole, welcome to...

Thanatos's Theological Treatise

Issue #4

As always, please read the entire review through before posting comments!



What book are you reviewing this time?

This book is a bit of a treasure trove in regards to the factual and scientific data of the events of Christ’s Passion.

How so?

Well, think of it in this way.

Christians as a whole know full and well the sequence of events of Christs’s Passion, from the night at the garden of Gethsemane, to the crucifixion at Golgotha, to the burial in the stone sepulcher.

While a great amount of proper dedication is given to Christ’s sufferings and the spiritual significance of His actions leading up to the cross, almost no attention is given to the physical aspect of the Passion. It would be a very safe bet to say that most Christians have no conception of an anatomist’s point of view when thinking of the sufferings of Jesus.

While the main significance is, rightfully so, given to the spiritual message that Christ taught, there can be no harm in striving a bit further, and wondering what physically happened as well. Just because something is highly spiritual and mystical does not mean that a physical explanation is not forthcoming as well.

Here are just a smattering of questions that most Christians are probably unable to answer, or maybe just never thought of before.

- The symbol of the cross is universally recognized as +. However, where is the proof that Jesus was crucified on a high cross? Was Jesus crucified on a +, usually reserved for senators and statesmen of high pedigree, or on the common T, given to common criminals and citizens of the time?
- Was Jesus crucified in the palms of his hands, or on his wrists? If so, where, exactly?
- Why did water and blood come out of the wound made by Longinus’ lance at the heart?
- Did Jesus carry an entire cross to Golgotha, or did he carry only the patibulum (the horizontal beam)?
- Why was Jesus unable to carry his cross to Golgotha alone?
- Did Romans usually scourge before crucifixion, or on the way to crucifixion?
- When Jesus’ feet were crucified, which foot was in front of the other? Left, or right?
- Besides the obvious spiritual reasons, why was Jesus so thirsty?
- When Simon of Cyrene was conscripted to carry the cross, was he sharing the burden with Jesus, or was he carrying it alone?
- How much did a patibulum weigh? How much did a whole cross patibulum and stipes weigh?
- Who was there when Jesus was captured in the garden of Gethsemane?
- How many nails were used to crucify Jesus?
- Did Jesus really sweat blood?
- What is the real reason for the fish symbolism, other than that of decorating the bumpers of cars?
- How thick were the nails used to crucify Jesus?
- What is the exact cause of death from crucifixion?
- What are the physical symptoms that happen to the thighs, the arms, and the chest, specifically, when the body is crucified?
- The normal time for crucifixion would take anywhere from a day (usually) to three days (in the most extreme cases). If that was the case, why was Jesus’s time on the cross so unbelievably short?
- How many people carried Jesus to the tomb?
- How far is Golgotha from Jerusalem?
- How far is Golgotha from the stone tomb in which Jesus would be laid to rest?
- Why did the holy women have to wait until the Sabbath was over to anoint Jesus’s body? Why didn’t they do a proper burial when they first laid Jesus out in the tomb?
- Since Jesus’ proper burial was botched until after the Sabbath, were the disciples able to anoint the body with anything when they laid Him in the tomb? If so, with what?
- Was Jesus’ crown of thorns a circle, or was it a cap?
- What tree was the crown of thorns made from?
- How many people scourged Jesus in the praetorium?
- Were they of differing heights, or were they of about the same height?
- What were the two main weapons they used to scourge Jesus with?
- Were the majority of Jesus’ wounds on His back, or on His front?
- Did Jesus have the dignity of an undergarment when He was scourged, and later on the cross?
- Was Jesus’ crown of thorns merely resting on His head, or was there something keeping it fastened on His head?
- How much would the scalp have bled from the thorns?
- Were there bands holding fast Jesus’ body in the tomb, or was it only a burial cloth?
- When the Bible mentions nakedness, does it actually mean somebody was in the nude, or does it mean something different?
- Was Jesus’ crucifixion a hurried job?
- Did Jesus have a nice physique (in a non-blasphemous way)?
- What was the exact process in how people were crucified? Were they really crucified on the ground, like in Mel Gibson’s movie?
- Why is crucifixion the worst type of torture one can go through? Why is it worse, than say, getting eaten or burned alive?
- Did the Romans always nail people to the cross at crucifixion, or did they use other instruments as well?
- Did the Romans invent crucifixion?
- At what point did Jesus stop bleeding profusely?
- How did the Roman military executors/carpenters make a ? type of cross? What about a ? type of cross?
- How much leeway did the Roman executor overseeing the crucifixion have over the proceedings? Could he torture the crucified more if he wished?
- Was Jesus’ heart wound normal at those times?
- Was Jesus’ crown with thorns common for those who would be put to death for supposedly defying the power of Rome?
- Which hurts more, getting crucified in the feet, or in the hands?
- What was His burial cloth made of?
- How big was His burial cloth?
- When are you going to get to your point already?! Enough with the questions!

These are more than perfectly valid questions, no?

So, what’s the name of this book already?!

The name of this book is “A Doctor at Calvary – The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon” by Pierre Barbet, M.D.

This book was originally written in French, but has been translated into English by the Earl of Wicklow.

Here is the cover of the book:


And the back of the book:


And this book is going to answer all of those questions? Isn’t that a bit ambitious? Besides, how does he get his information from? How does he know about all of this?

This is a perfectly valid question. It is only natural that one would demand verification of the author’s data.

All of those questions are answered by him by a detailed description of the Holy Shroud of Turin. For those who don’t know what that is, The Holy Shroud of Turin is the very burial shroud that Jesus was wrapped in after His crucifixion.

Yeah, sure. And how do we know this “holy” shroud is anything? It could be a forgery, for crying out loud!

Yes, this is another perfectly valid concern as well. There have been numerous forgeries of the Shroud, the last true attempt being made during the 14th century.

Monsieur Barbet takes a look at every single forgery, and points out the blunders the artist has made when he tried to make a copy of the Shroud. As Msr. Barbet is an anatomist and a surgeon, and the Shroud was covering the bloody body of Jesus partly on the way to the tomb, and covered his entire body later, there are many details, large and small, that painters, notorious for eschewing realism instead for the common artistic practices of iconography of the time have overlooked.

Msr. Barbet investigates each “shroud” very closely, in a very detailed and scientific matter, showing how each one is proved to be a forgery.

And we know that this “Shroud of Turin” is real because…?

Msr. Barbet, through the scientific method, analyzes the blood stains on the shroud, as well as the imprint of Jesus on the shroud, and through his understanding of anatomy and as a surgeon of how blood and clot serum works, is forced to conclude that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the real one, spending at least a quarter of the book on how there simply is no flaw in the marks of the Shroud that would give it away as the mark of a forger.

Among some other details of the true Shroud:

- The imprint of Jesus on the Shroud has Him naked. No other shroud has ever portrayed Him thus, probably from the artists’ fear of violating iconography’s norms (regardless of the time period), as well as that of blasphemy (or so they thought).
- The other shrouds tend to portray all four nail holes (the two hands, the two feet). The Shroud of Turin is the only one to show two, with one hand above the other covering the pelvic regions to preserve His dignity, and one foot hole shown. The other leg imprint begins to fade out by the time it reaches His other foot.
- As artists are, as I’ve mentioned before, usually notoriously bad at anatomy and the way physics impacts the flow of liquids, the forgeries often depict very nice flows of “blood” on their respective shrouds. The Shroud of Turin is the only one to show not a flow, but a great smattering of the marks of clots.
- When blood coagulates into a clot, the clot grows progressively smaller, emitting clear serum as it does so, which would have stained the regions around the blood marks on the Shroud. However, the True Shroud is the only one to show these serum stains.
- The other shrouds like to portray Jesus as crucified in the palms, while the Shroud is pierced in the wrists.
- The images produced by the True Shroud when viewing it directly in front, imprints and clots and all, are a perfect photographic negative of the body that lay in the cloth itself. All the other shrouds do not duplicate this visual aspect, as the whole concept of a negative was completely unknown in those times. Consequently, none of the of the artists creating these forgeries would have known to do this.

Excerpts from the book itself, completely random pages:







It is through such analytical detailed searches that Msr. Barbet comes to such conclusions through the entire book. Throughout the book as well, Msr. Barbet also employs the help of other physicians in the field with their own critique of the Shroud of Turin, as well as utilizing the work of Saints who were real doctors as well in their true profession to analyze not only the Shroud, but the Bible verses that describe the Passion as well.

Any else you want to say?

If a complain could be lodged against this book, I would say that if anything, it is too detailed, if such a thing were even remotely possible. Although Msr. Barbet has written the book for those not of a medical profession, he must still use the scientific terms for the different parts of the body when describing them out of basic comprehensive necessity.

I strongly recommend that you have a computer dictionary on hand so that you can look up any words that you don’t know.

Although the author himself is Catholic, he has strived to the utmost to ensure that his opinions and deductions are of purely a scientific nature, as is properly befitting any scientist that is investigating any claim. He also wishes to state that he is more than willing to reevaluate his positions if any opposing evidence that is undeniably contradictory to the facts he has stated down comes up. However, as of now, there still has not been any opposing arguments to the thesis he has written down in this book.

Thank you for taking your time to read TTT #4, and I hope you had as much enjoyment out of reading this work as I did in creating this labor of love.

Your humble theologian,

Thanatos

- Was Jesus crucified in the palms of his hands, or on his wrists? If so, where, exactly?

The theologians of the Orthodox Church narrate that according to tradition He was crucified in the wrists . Sometimes however the romans nailed the palms along with the wrists for some reasons ,I wouldn't be surprised if of mere cruelty .

- Why did water and blood come out of the wound made by Longinus’ lance at the heart?

Because the Savior was already dead at the time Longinus stabbed Him .And in the bodies of the dead an amount of water is accumulated as well as uncoagulated blood .

- What is the exact cause of death from crucifixion?

This i don't quite remember but I guess it was a kind of suffocation - but not of the lungs rather than of the entire organism -when the internal organs,being pressed by the weight of the body and the pressure of the ribs upon the cavity of the body - start malfunctioning and eventually seize functioning in a period of around 3 days . So you could say there is renal,heart and pulmonary insufficiency alltogether causing a common symptoms death .To that you can add hunger and mainly thurst together with heat (which is quite big in those countries in the south) that exhaust completely the power of the body .

- The normal time for crucifixion would take anywhere from a day (usually) to three days (in the most extreme cases). If that was the case, why was Jesus’s time on the cross so unbelievably short?

You must tell me .I don't remember this .But anyway " when the soldier approached according to the rules to brake his legs,he found he was already dead .And this happened to fulfill the prophesies "not a bone of him shall be broken" "

- Was Jesus’ crown with thorns common for those who would be put to death for supposedly defying the power of Rome?

No it wasn't .His crown of thorns was made in mockery of the people's claim that he is "rex iudeorum " or "king of Israel " . They made it together with a fake sceptre and a red mantle to mock his supposed royal dignity .

Did I answer correct according to Monsieur Barbet ?

Originally Posted by Dracula

The theologians of the Orthodox Church narrate that according to tradition He was crucified in the wrists . Sometimes however the romans nailed the palms along with the wrists for some reasons ,I wouldn't be surprised if of mere cruelty .

Correct! Jesus was crucified in the wrists. As the wrists are associated with the rest of the hand, there is nothing wrong with St. Luke writing that the Romans put a nail into His hand.

Because the Savior was already dead at the time Longinus stabbed Him .And in the bodies of the dead an amount of water is accumulated as well as uncoagulated blood .

Yes and no, here. While water does collect itself into chambers in the body, depending on where the body is hanging, I am afraid I led you on with a bit of a trick question.

Whenever somebody wanted the body of a crucified person to be taken down, the Romans had a preliminary thrust of a lance to the heart, in order to ensure that the crucified really was dead.

In the case of the crucified, the fluids, due to gravity, accumulate in the inferior Vena Cava, or lower right chamber of the heart, which is located close to the right side of your ribcage. Please note that while the great veins and arteries leading out of the heart, where the pumping action is, is on the left side of your chest, the "tip" of the heart is located near the right side.

No water accumulates in the heart. The heart has two layers, the fatty outside one, and the actual heart layer. Each layer has its own liquid.

When Longinus' spear thrust into the the inferior Vena Cava, he cut both layers, and thus you have both blood and serum leak out of the body. As the serum is not very viscous, and is quite clear, it resembles water quite well.

This i don't quite remember but I guess it was a kind of suffocation - but not of the lungs rather than of the entire organism -when the internal organs,being pressed by the weight of the body and the pressure of the ribs upon the cavity of the body - start malfunctioning and eventually seize functioning in a period of around 3 days . So you could say there is renal,heart and pulmonary insufficiency alltogether causing a common symptoms death .To that you can add hunger and mainly thurst together with heat (which is quite big in those countries in the south) that exhaust completely the power of the body .

Yes, the crucified died from slow asphyxiation. However, their body also, in addition to hunger and thirst, suffered from a slow terrible cramping throughout their entire body from this ordeal.

You must tell me .I don't remember this .But anyway " when the soldier approached according to the rules to brake his legs,he found he was already dead .And this happened to fulfill the prophesies "not a bone of him shall be broken" "

Well, now you'll have to read the book, don't you?

No it wasn't .His crown of thorns was made in mockery of the people's claim that he is "rex iudeorum " or "king of Israel " . They made it together with a fake sceptre and a red mantle to mock his supposed royal dignity .

Correct again!

Did I answer correct according to Monsieur Barbet ?

I think 3.5/5 questions is pretty good!

Ok
I remembered another thing . They say not all criminals were nailed ,some were tied to the crosses . What does your book say about this ? I mean feet nailed and hands tied perhaps .

Contemplating all questions about Christ ,they say brings the soul in communion with God

Originally Posted by Dracula

Ok
I remembered another thing . They say not all criminals were nailed ,some were tied to the crosses . What does your book say about this ? I mean feet nailed and hands tied perhaps .

Contemplating all questions about Christ ,they say brings the soul in communion with God

Ah, yes, the book touches this as well.

Tying up with ropes was known tobe practiced in the Roman Empire. However, records would show that this practice was mostly to be found in the Middle East, specifically Egypt.

However, as there is no absolutely no proof whatsoever that the Romans mixed nails and rope together, we must rule that out.

EDIT: Wow, apparently my TTTs get fewer and fewer responses every time I make one...

Originally Posted by Thanatos

EDIT: Wow, apparently my TTTs get fewer and fewer responses every time I make one...

How many times do I have to say that people start with nice sounding things and leave the crown of torns,the scourge and death for the end ?

And yes it is sure Christ was nailed .I was talking about the practise in general .

Besides start provoking thought . I suppose even the Pope can't answer an exact question like "How many nails did he have in one wrist ? "

Ahh..my most regular friend basics hasn't appeared this time .He appears somewhere to spew,spit smth against the Church and the "saints of the living God" .But in serious questions he is not interested .

Firstly He was taken to the leaders and roughed up. Then to Herod and back to the leaders for more of the same. Then to Pilate and back to the leaders. Then again back to Pilate where sentence was authorised. On each occasion His silence was enough to bring on punishment.

The crown of thorns being battered down on His head was enough to set blood rolling but the scourging by the 39 whippings surely tore into his frame as well. What man could endure these things as a preliminary and still be expected to carry the means of his own execution? He tried but couldn't, that someone else was made to help.

How He was nailed to the cross is recorded by His showing Thomas the scars but apart from that really quite inconsequential for many thousands had suffered the same hanging on many occasions. It was the unseen supernatural action that went on as darkness fell over the land during the hours that men and women were being saved that is the important part.

He was caked in blood and mud made from the dust and that fluid, darkening as it dried into his flesh as the heat of day wore on. For some six hours He hung there being taunted and abused by those, some who considered Him a prophet, who previously had even sang out blessing His very name. His disciples, some at least stood in the near distance never quite understanding what was going on.

But in that darkness, in the moments when supernaturally He became sin for every sinner, and, quite abandoned by His Father, He paid the price that the Law demanded for sin for the elect, just as though they themselves were actually hanging there. For each one, He endured what would never be asked of them again, and He suffered for it. Even for one thief hanging by His side He gathered in so that when he died heaven was a certainty.

And, when all that was required of Him, when every shred, every drop of sin had been exposed and scourged off His own, He raised His head crying out that it was finished. Finished, why? Because there was no more left to wash. All the condemned that He was substitute for had no sin left to give up. He had taken it all and cleansed it pure by His blood. They were condemned no more.

At this His last words He gave up the Ghost and died. A little later it was ordered that His legs be broke to encourage that which had already happened but they His executioners were too late, He was already dead. But being men of orders nothing was taken for granted and the spear of one was pushed into His side.

Water and blood, blood and water came forth as would be normal were in this case not more significant than that. It is said that on death bodily fluids expel themselves from the deceased. So in this case what was the significance, that is the Spiritual significance that inspired Scripture to include it?

Well, blood is the substance of life. It is Holy to God in that by Law you die by it through taint unless it be purified and His pouring out blood on death was the greatest of love that He gave His blood that others might live. The water that Scripture deems worthy of recollection is of the substance that sustains life. He was/is the water of life and any that drink it/Him shall see eternal life.

So when He died and was pierced both blood and water poured forth onto the ground of His making to be absorbed by His own creation as if it had never happened. But it did happen even though to the world, everything logical to mankind, says it didn't and the world is wrong because somewhere in that ground the evidence is still there.

Finally, I must mention the Turin shroud that thousands believe to be His deathbed cover. This I believe was tested only recently by experts who came to the conclusion that it dated from a much later period. Quite apart from that the imprint does not match Scripture evidence of what Messiah looked like. To me it is like the so-called Holy grail, being another potential idol in the minds of men.

Originally Posted by basics

Finally, I must mention the Turin shroud that thousands believe to be His deathbed cover. This I believe was tested only recently by experts who came to the conclusion that it dated from a much later period. Quite apart from that the imprint does not match Scripture evidence of what Messiah looked like. To me it is like the so-called Holy grail, being another potential idol in the minds of men.

I was liking your post until this part.

Got any proof?

Originally Posted by basics

And, when all that was required of Him, when every shred, every drop of sin had been exposed and scourged off His own, He raised His head crying out that it was finished. Finished, why? Because there was no more left to wash. All the condemned that He was substitute for had no sin left to give up. He had taken it all and cleansed it pure by His blood. They were condemned no more.

The sin wasn't being washed drop by drop with every suffering of Christ .It was cleaned at once with his resurrection when he gained a victory over hell .For sure untill he didn't go down in hell nobody yet was saved . He cried "finished" to mark his human's sufferings end ,it was not adressed to some cleaning .Why do I remain with the impression too many gothic legends over there among you ?!

Well, blood is the substance of life. It is Holy to God in that by Law you die by it through taint unless it be purified and His pouring out blood on death was the greatest of love that He gave His blood that others might live. The water that Scripture deems worthy of recollection is of the substance that sustains life. He was/is the water of life and any that drink it/Him shall see eternal life.

This is also a legend .If these two substances can be found in all dead -as Thanathos explained serum resembling water , why should their leaking out of Christ's body have some special symbolism when we know he had a totally human body like everyone else's ?!

So then people born with deformalities are further away from God?

Originally Posted by Who

So then people born with deformalities are further away from God?

No .But you don't expect all people to be equal to God ,do you ?

You do not understand that if god has to pay with blood,he will be in debt to somebody and hence lower than this to which he ows something .I would say his suffering/blood was an element of the salvation but in no case the key one .The key one is the good will and the condescendance of the Divinity to men,which caused suffering and resurrection .And for sure before the resurrection nothing was yet done .This means you should at least take them -suffering/blood and ressurection as one unseparable complex ,if you don't believe me.
As for this book,I guess they'll throw all the fault on the romans,from Pilate to Constantine .And this is a latest jewish influence on christianity . In fact the romans were washed out by the fault for Christ's crucifixion-when Pilate wanted to release the Lord,the jews opposed .Pilate washed his hands and said-then I am clean from the blood of this righteous man .And they answered "Be this blood upon us and our children forever" .I don't see how this is not clear .

Dracula,

The last point first. The book is written by an academic of no mean qualification and is in no way biased. It is based on all the known writings of the early church and it's opponents including more than what I've seen quoted in these threads.

Now to the first point. The whole reason for the coming of a Saviour, the Son, was to pay the debt owed by fallen mankind to the Father, God. Why so? Because man could not pay the price and be saved for by dying he only suffered justice without being saved.

That was the price of sin and any sinner when dead remains a sinner unless washed by the blood of the Lamb of God. God's own blood was the only thing capable of doing what was/is necessary to take away sin. Since the curse is on all mankind no other could do this.

Without blood there is no remission for sins. Abel's offering was a lamb which to God was acceptable because it pointed to the seed that God had spoken to Eve of, that seed being the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Whereas Cain's was not acceptabl;e because it didn't point to the Lord.

It was earthly, of no faith, the fruits of his toils, and toil does not see any get into heaven. By grace was Abel blessed because he had faith as shown by his offering and in death he was in effect the first eathly born martyr.

The Lord Jesus Christ could claim being the first martyr since He was ordained to die before the foundations of the world. Indeed was He not known to be the firstfruits of all those chosen to be saved? Is He not the one chosen to open the books that contain the names belonging to Him when the end comes?

Originally Posted by basics

Now to the first point. The whole reason for the coming of a Saviour, the Son, was to pay the debt owed by fallen mankind to the Father, God. Why so? Because man could not pay the price and be saved for by dying he only suffered justice without being saved.

That was the price of sin and any sinner when dead remains a sinner unless washed by the blood of the Lamb of God. God's own blood was the only thing capable of doing what was/is necessary to take away sin. Since the curse is on all mankind no other could do this.

I do not agree with the terms debt and payment .If no man could pay it,Christ also couldn't .
The whole thing is the grace and condescendance of God ,who destroys sin by sacrifice and love so that sin will no longer reign in any form over men .

Originally Posted by Dracula

I do not agree with the terms debt and payment .If no man could pay it,Christ also couldn't .

Please remember the dual nature of Christ, however.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Please remember the dual nature of Christ, however.

Yeah but he does not do it through the man's part in him .It merely participates .

As the Lamb of God He was the sacrifice. As the Redeemer He paid the price for us. As the Saviour we now are saved. By His resurrection we too have that promise fulfilled. And by His faith we too are gifted the same so that we have no doubt that these things are true. It is what separates us from the world. And, finally, it covers all of time, from Adam to judgement, that all men and women whose names are in the book of life enjoy, by His blood, the same salvation.

This is all correct if you replace "blood" with "resurrection " . Without resurrection no blood would save .Hadn't he resurected but remained as human among the dead,no value of his sacrifice would be .

And, since He covered Himself with your sin and my sin in those hours, He could not expect any help from the Father. He was to all intents the most hideous sinner ever born of man and God the Father was helpless because He cannot abide sin, even the smallest portion. So He paid the price on behalf of us all chosen before the world was made.

You'll have to ellaborate on this .The teaching of the Church is that there was no sin in Christ whatsoever ,and even in the last hours he remained pure by sin . I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say .If just a metaphore,it's OK

Dracula,

In the hours that He hung on the cross, He was in your place and mine and all other chosen sinners. That means collectively He took upon Himself every drop of sin from those already mentioned so that by His blood, not His resurrection, by His blood he scourged, correct translation, all sin from off them so that in the eyes of the Law and of God the Father there was nothing, no sin, left to pay for.

For us it was gone and gone forever, meaning for us that on our passing we do not see death but are resurrected to eternal life. Resurrection cannot come before the cleaning and if it did you would be resurrected still in sin and certainly not into heaven. Everything in it's order. Blood alone is the price of sin. Resurrection is the reward once cleansed.

An example just came to mind. The thief on the cross beside Jesus was told that today he would be in paradise. Note the word today, yet Jesus wasn't for He was in the grave for three days. Therefore this proves that blood alone saves for at that point the thief was about to pass on being washed by the blood with no resurrection on view for another three days.

In the hours that He hung on the cross, He was in your place and mine and all other chosen sinners. That means collectively He took upon Himself every drop of sin from those already mentioned

Sorry ,I cannot agree .I remain with the impression he is similar to a vacuum-cleaner .As inappropriate as it may sound .These are relations and ideas .They don't need to be sucked onto smbd for to be cleaned or washed .I wish you understand me,because I am afraid of being blasphemous .

An example just came to mind. The thief on the cross beside Jesus was told that today he would be in paradise. Note the word today, yet Jesus wasn't for He was in the grave for three days. Therefore this proves that blood alone saves for at that point the thief was about to pass on being washed by the blood with no resurrection on view for another three days.

I did not understand you .Please use some more proper english cause not everybody speaks english as a mother lang. here .

Dracula,

OK, let's take your last point first regarding the thief on the cross. Your argument is that it is resurrection that saves. So, when the three men were being crucified one was told by Jesus that today he would be in paradise because of the nature of his comments to Jesus. In other words because of what he said to the Lord, it was enough that he would on that same day get to heaven.

The point I now make is that if you were correct the thief couldn't get to heaven that day because Jesus would not be resurrected for three more days. So if resurrection is the point of salvation then the words of Jesus were wrong because the thief couldn't get there for another three days. But Jesus said today you will be in paradise.

So how did the thief get into heaven that day? Because by blood was he saved, by blood was he washed clean so that not one iota of sin was left to stop him entering that place. That Jesus was three days in the ground was enough proof that He died and when He was raised up that was enough proof concerning the promises given to Abraham and all God's children, that they are true.

To be a child of God it is of necessity that all are raised up just as He was but that is the reward for being a child of God. Firstly sin must be erazed from off each one so that the reward can be in it's time enacted. I hope that this explains it a little better although I should point out that it was faith that Jesus is who He is that saved the man just as it was faith that saved all before. That faith was that He would shed blood, die and be resurrected, but the blood is the key.