These subjects have been treated of in hundreds of books and articles written by people far more knowledgeable and qualified than I. However, I seek here to enumerate some of my favorite arguments in favor of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
1) Breaking the legs of someone who has been crucified does NOT result in death by asphyxiation. The Romans didn't use their spears to break the criminal's legs -- that would take to long, if it even worked at all. They would have used a club, something like a sledgehammer, to break the legs in one swing. Breaking the legs in this way also crushes the veins, particularly the major veins that are responsible for returning the blood from the feet to the heart. With these veins crushed, the blood has no way to return to the heart. The heart would keep pumping blood to the lower legs, but the blood would then stay there. The person would lose consciousness in 3 minutes and be dead in 5.
2) The "blood and water" do not come from the separation of the blood and plasma. Rather, they indicate the cause of His death. One of the functions of the lungs is to exhale excess moisture used by the lungs to lubricate its surfaces. There's a LOT of water that gets exhaled -- just look at what is left on a mirror or a glass when you breathe on it. In cases where someone has consumed too much alcohol or has taken too many muscle relaxants, the muscles controlling respiration don't expel air as effectively. This means the fluid in the lungs doesn't get expelled, and without treatment the person effectively drowns.
The heart is a marvelous machine: it starts pumping about 3 weeks after conception, and with proper maintenance will continue to pump without rest for 60, 70, 80, or even 100 years. It is a very special kind of pump, called a hypovolemic pump, which is very efficient but with one problem: if there is any drop in the volume of the liquid being pumped, where the supply is blocked, the pump seizes up.
Jesus would not have been using his legs to raise his chest to breathe. His diaphragm is already extended and can do little if anything to help Him breathe. Instead, he would have been thrusting his chest out, arching his back against the main post of the crucifix in order to expand his lungs. Doing this, however, does not provide the lungs with enough power to expel the water vapor. Accordingly, the water will continue to collect in the lungs, pressing against the heart and the circulatory system. Jesus has also been leaking blood for several hours, and eventually these two systems collide: the blood volume drops to where it cannot overcome the pressure being placed on it by the lungs. The heart stops, and Jesus died.
When the soldiers pierced His side with a lance, the lance would have sliced through the right lung, and depending on the angle, possibly through the left lung also. All of the fluid collected there would have flowed out with His Blood.
I think this is a good summary of some of the main apologetic responses, but there is little to no engagement with sophisticated critiques of the resurrection, such as those offered by Michael Martin, Robert Greg Cavin, Arif Ahmed, Alex Malpass, J.H. Sobel, Evan Fales, and many others. I'd recommend looking into some of the more sophisticated critiques offered by Atheists and Naturalists in order to approach a more fair assessment.
Two errors in this article:
1) Breaking the legs of someone who has been crucified does NOT result in death by asphyxiation. The Romans didn't use their spears to break the criminal's legs -- that would take to long, if it even worked at all. They would have used a club, something like a sledgehammer, to break the legs in one swing. Breaking the legs in this way also crushes the veins, particularly the major veins that are responsible for returning the blood from the feet to the heart. With these veins crushed, the blood has no way to return to the heart. The heart would keep pumping blood to the lower legs, but the blood would then stay there. The person would lose consciousness in 3 minutes and be dead in 5.
2) The "blood and water" do not come from the separation of the blood and plasma. Rather, they indicate the cause of His death. One of the functions of the lungs is to exhale excess moisture used by the lungs to lubricate its surfaces. There's a LOT of water that gets exhaled -- just look at what is left on a mirror or a glass when you breathe on it. In cases where someone has consumed too much alcohol or has taken too many muscle relaxants, the muscles controlling respiration don't expel air as effectively. This means the fluid in the lungs doesn't get expelled, and without treatment the person effectively drowns.
The heart is a marvelous machine: it starts pumping about 3 weeks after conception, and with proper maintenance will continue to pump without rest for 60, 70, 80, or even 100 years. It is a very special kind of pump, called a hypovolemic pump, which is very efficient but with one problem: if there is any drop in the volume of the liquid being pumped, where the supply is blocked, the pump seizes up.
Jesus would not have been using his legs to raise his chest to breathe. His diaphragm is already extended and can do little if anything to help Him breathe. Instead, he would have been thrusting his chest out, arching his back against the main post of the crucifix in order to expand his lungs. Doing this, however, does not provide the lungs with enough power to expel the water vapor. Accordingly, the water will continue to collect in the lungs, pressing against the heart and the circulatory system. Jesus has also been leaking blood for several hours, and eventually these two systems collide: the blood volume drops to where it cannot overcome the pressure being placed on it by the lungs. The heart stops, and Jesus died.
When the soldiers pierced His side with a lance, the lance would have sliced through the right lung, and depending on the angle, possibly through the left lung also. All of the fluid collected there would have flowed out with His Blood.
I think this is a good summary of some of the main apologetic responses, but there is little to no engagement with sophisticated critiques of the resurrection, such as those offered by Michael Martin, Robert Greg Cavin, Arif Ahmed, Alex Malpass, J.H. Sobel, Evan Fales, and many others. I'd recommend looking into some of the more sophisticated critiques offered by Atheists and Naturalists in order to approach a more fair assessment.