The Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani علیه السلام (on him be peace) was, according to prophecy, supposed to break the cross. Any Christian would admit that if Jesus’ survival (as opposed to his death) on the cross could be proven it would mark the futility of their faith and the end of Christianity. The sacrifice of the son for the sake of many is what Christianity revolves around. So let it be understood that as far as the Bible is concerned there is evidence that Jesus did die on the cross. But there is far more evidence to show that he didn’t. And therein lies the second refutation of Christian doctrine. That according to the Bible there is much more evidence pointing to Jesus’ survival of the torments of the cross than there is of his death on it. This is planned to be a two-part refutation and truly if the survival of Jesus on the cross can be shown it would leave the cross in pieces.

The fact of the matter is that three to six to nine hours on the cross are not enough to kill. Rather, death on the cross was a slow and painful process that took days. Individuals have normally been recorded to survive the cross for two to three days (even ten days max according to Plutarch (75 A.D.)). The New Bible Dictionary also concluded based on the historical facts of crucifixion that “death by this method was usually quite protracted, rarely supervening before thirty-six hours, and on occasion taking as long as nine days” (1962 ed, Intervarsity Press, Page 282). But if all this is unconvincing then why did Pilate express his surprise (Mark 15:44) that Jesus was already dead? Pilate must have overseen many a crucifixion. He was well aware of the entire process: from the torture of the convicted up until the eventual crucifixion. Then why so shocked? Wasn’t it too soon for a healthy man (Jesus was a carpenter after all) to die on the cross? Is six hours really enough?

But the centurion’s reply at Pilate’s surprise was that he had checked and Jesus had died. What was the check? The check was that “One of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water” (John 19:34). But surely the centurions knew and knew very well that water does not gush out from corpses. Water only gushes out from a man whose heart still pumps. Is it not strange that the centurion pronounced Jesus’ death despite seeing the blood and water gush forth? But actually it is not that strange when one realizes that this centurion had already declared “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). A sympathetic Roman? Maybe even a secret follower? What is definite is that following the gushing of blood and water from an experienced centurion it does not make medical sense that Jesus’ death should have been declared. Why even bother to check the death of Jesus if he was dead? And why declare him dead if the heart was still pumping?

Compared to this we only have a distant eye-witness from John (disciple of Jesus) when he says “With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (John 19:30) John could easily have come to the conclusion that Jesus had lost conscience. Today with all the scientific tools at hand doctors differentiate between what is clinical death and what is actual death. For there have been clinically dead people who have returned to life. John had no such equipment. He was not even physically close to Jesus. He did not hear or feel his heart beat. Wasn’t he quick to conclude standing a few meters away that Jesus had died? Based on Jesus’ head bowing down? Can one conclude from a bowed down head that a person has died?

So anyone who still requires more evidence shall be provided as such. But shouldn’t this post be a cause for concern to Christians? Did Jesus really die on the cross? Does a dead heart pump blood so that it may gush forth? Or does it take merely six hours to kill someone by crucifixion? If there are strong reasons to show even from the Bible that Jesus did not die on the cross then why should one continue to believe in the mysterious theory of substitutionary atonement? It is bad enough that the theory makes no sense. But if Jesus never died then the substitution could not have happened. Does the honest minded person continue to entertain beliefs that have such shaky foundations? Is that the way of the righteous?

So it is our hope and prayer that Christians see the complete lack of reason in the crucifixion of the holy man that was Jesus Christ. And it is true that the prevalent Muslim “substitution” theory is also very funny. But that is for some other time. A lack of broken bones and a lesson on herbal medicine awaits the next parts of this refutation.