H
Hope1960
Guest
I have the book and read it. I saw the movie, too. I just wanted to know if scholars have changed their opinions about the “swoon theory”.
- Status
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
How did He survive having the spear thrust into His heart?
How could He still breathe after His legs were broken, while He was still hanging there?
How did the Roman soldiers not notice He was still alive when they took Him down?
How do you account for the Roman guards letting the disciples make off with the body, when they would be executed by Pilate for letting this happen?
How did He survive lying in the tomb with no help or treatment, for however long it was till the disciples rescued Him?
How is it that in descriptions of His appearances to others later on, there was no description of the horrible injuries to His Body?
Why were all the Apostles willing to die by torture rather than admit that He only passed out and was revived? They had to have known the truth; why die for what they knew was a lie?
H
Hope1960
Guest
His legs were not broken.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Ahh. I stand corrected; the other two had their legs broken. My bad and thank you for the correction.
H
Hope1960
Guest
You’re welcome, and no problem.
P
petra22
Guest
If there are any deer hunters on here… They can tell you what happens when their lungs and heart are punctured… they don’t get up and walk away… The marks in Jesus’ hands and feet and side were still visible and open. Remember he told Thomas not to be a doubter but to put his hand INTO his side and believe…
W
womanatwell
Guest
For a long time, Biblical scholars have wanted to be “scientific.” They took this to mean their interpretations should be of a materialistic nature. This was called the historical-critical method. They felt they shouldn’t allow for miracles. There is an article about the development of this thought and an answer in 1993 by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on interpretation of the Scriptures. The link is here:
www.crisismagazine.com
The commission said it is OK to use the historical-critical method in certain ways, but it has its limits. Their document is said to be quite lengthy and you may want to read it.
Also, in 1988 Pope Benedict XVI delivered an address about the problems with Biblical interpretations. This is printed in the “First Things” website, linked here:
www.firstthings.com
I had the opportunity to get a Certificate of Theology at a Catholic college. There were professors there who taught about Biblical Scholarship, although I don’t know if you would consider them biblical scholars themselves. I am sure they did not believe in the swoon theory. I think if they did, they would have told us to never mind about the Catholic Faith , go home, nothing to see here. They believed in the Catholic Faith themselves and defended the Bible’s story as true.
Biblical Scholarship and the Church
Biblical scholarship is usually granted instant credibility today because it is considered “scientific.” Thus, the findings of the Jesus Seminar, however ill-founded, nevertheless quickly become…
www.crisismagazine.com
The commission said it is OK to use the historical-critical method in certain ways, but it has its limits. Their document is said to be quite lengthy and you may want to read it.
Also, in 1988 Pope Benedict XVI delivered an address about the problems with Biblical interpretations. This is printed in the “First Things” website, linked here:
Biblical Interpretation in Crisis | Benedict XVI
In Wladimir Solowjew’s History of the Antichrist, the eschatological enemy of the Redeemer . . . .
www.firstthings.com
I had the opportunity to get a Certificate of Theology at a Catholic college. There were professors there who taught about Biblical Scholarship, although I don’t know if you would consider them biblical scholars themselves. I am sure they did not believe in the swoon theory. I think if they did, they would have told us to never mind about the Catholic Faith , go home, nothing to see here. They believed in the Catholic Faith themselves and defended the Bible’s story as true.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Why alternative theories to the actual Resurrection, including the swoon theory, don’t work is treated in depth in this series of seven videos.
The drop down menu at the top left (below) allows selection of videos.
No serious New Testament scholars accept the swoon theory as possible.
As the series below shows, the actual Resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable alternative given all of the facts.
The drop down menu at the top left (below) allows selection of videos.
No serious New Testament scholars accept the swoon theory as possible.
As the series below shows, the actual Resurrection of Jesus is the most reasonable alternative given all of the facts.
Last edited:
L
LoyalViews
Guest
It is interesting to see how the field scholar is changing throughout the years. Increasingly impacted by the evil one, who seeks to lead all away from Christ.
H
Hope1960
Guest
I know that no “serious NT scholars” adhere to the swoon theory, BUT the question is are scholars changing their minds and are some starting to believe in that theory?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Post–modern activism has deeply infiltrated modern western academic institutions. “Modern scholars” are liable to think and espouse almost any insanity.
I wouldn’t put so much faith in what modern scholars say about anything. Develop an abiding sense of the truth, work on cultivating strong thinking skills, and put your faith, love and hope in God. Be selective of the scholars you trust and look to them for the names of others who exhibit solid scholarship. Read and study to carefully verify anything that is claimed.
Never trust a scholar merely because they carry that moniker.
To answer your question, the swoon theory has no support among any credible scholars and there are no good reasons for even thinking it might have any possibility of being true.
I wouldn’t put so much faith in what modern scholars say about anything. Develop an abiding sense of the truth, work on cultivating strong thinking skills, and put your faith, love and hope in God. Be selective of the scholars you trust and look to them for the names of others who exhibit solid scholarship. Read and study to carefully verify anything that is claimed.
Never trust a scholar merely because they carry that moniker.
To answer your question, the swoon theory has no support among any credible scholars and there are no good reasons for even thinking it might have any possibility of being true.
Last edited:
D
Duesenberg
Guest
I had never heard of the book “The Crucifixion, by an Eye-Witness; A Letter, Written Seven Years After the Crucifixion” so I downloaded a PDF of it tonight. I read the preface and it seems like a rather childish work of fiction, with Masonic intrigue – the whole bit.
It states the autograph of this title (in Latin) is held by Freemasons in Germany. I’m not sure it’s even worth reading as a fictional work for amusement…
W
womanatwell
Guest
Since we do not seem to be getting to the bottom of your question, perhaps you can be more specific about which scholars and in what time frame you are asking. For example, I think Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Emeritus, is considered to be a Biblical Scholar, and I’m sure he has not changed his mind about the swoon theory.
I do think you would find the 1993 document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission helpful since it gives a perspective of Biblical scholarship from the Catholic viewpoint. Josef Ratzinger wrote the Preface. It is in very understandable language, so I will give a direct link to the full online document here:
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm
M
Melodeonist
Guest
I didn’t even bother reading it. I know it’s BS because the Bible is the Truth and the Bible says otherwise. Stuff like this basically Satan speaking through atheists and those from false faiths in a pathetic attempt to try to bring those in the Truth to doubt. It’s always best to ignore and rebuke anything contrary to the Truth. The Truth is the Truth, and it’ll always be the Truth no matter what. Anything that’s not the Truth is a total lie and, obviously, comes from the prince of lies.
H
Hope1960
Guest
I don’t have the scholars names, but in the Lee Stroble books he interviews scholars and concludes the swoon theory is bunk. These books were written years ago so I was wanting to know if anything’s changed.
W
womanatwell
Guest
Lee Strobel as an atheist was at that time affected by the arguments against the Truth of the Bible that were already in circulation for many years, the swoon theory among them. Wikipedia, just as a short reference and description, puts it back more than 200 years (to 1780):
Swoon hypothesis - Wikipedia
Different versions were from different “rationalist theologians,” named in the article.
Strobel’s book was published in 1998. So some people already believed in the swoon theory, but others didn’t (as he describes in his book). As Wikipedia says, “This 200-year-old hypothesis is still the subject of debate to this day.” Hence there are those who believe in it now and those who don’t.
In the article you first posted, it states that “Biblical Scholars” believe in the swoon theory. This is a sweeping, vague statement seemingly meant to back up the agenda of the doctor in the article (and probably the journalist). What I and other posters are saying is that there are many scholars who do not believe in the swoon theory at this time. They have not changed their minds. But there is still controversy brought on by others who want to deny the divinity of Christ or explain away His miracles.
And, BTW, the Pontifical Biblical Commission came out with a later statement in 2014 which is said to be more conservative than the 1993 one. I have not yet read it but plan to. It apparently gives even less credence to historical-critical method and more to inspiration for finding Truth through the Bible. Inspiration was not really addressed in the 1993 document. The document is called, “The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture (2014).”
H
Hope1960
Guest
So the majority of modern scholars haven’t changed their minds, and they still don’t believe the swoon theory or not?
Last edited:
W
womanatwell
Guest
I am not aware of any statistics about numbers of scholars who may have changed their minds one way or another on this subject or how many hold the theory one way or another. Certainly some individuals might have changed in the last 20 years, but I doubt it is that many. It would be interesting to know, but I think you would have to contact every Biblical Scholar to ask them to fill out a questionnaire of whether they have changed their minds over time. 
I think a bigger change has been over a longer period of time, such as the last few centuries, with the appearance of more and more liberal, materialistic Biblical scholars. This was when generations of people were effected by the “Enlightenment” and has led to less traditional Christian believers in the general public due to the long-term effects of this denial of miracles, etc. This is true in Europe and the US for example. So when you talk about a majority of scholars, there are a lot out there who take the materialistic way, but as I said I don’t think the balance has changed that much in the last 20 years.
I think a bigger change has been over a longer period of time, such as the last few centuries, with the appearance of more and more liberal, materialistic Biblical scholars. This was when generations of people were effected by the “Enlightenment” and has led to less traditional Christian believers in the general public due to the long-term effects of this denial of miracles, etc. This is true in Europe and the US for example. So when you talk about a majority of scholars, there are a lot out there who take the materialistic way, but as I said I don’t think the balance has changed that much in the last 20 years.
Last edited:
- Status