Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The death of Jesus Christ remains a pivotal moment in world history and a symbol of love, mercy, and courage across the globe. Yet for centuries, the manner of Jesus' death has remained a subject of controversy in academic and medical circles. Forensic pathologists and clinicians have argued for several hypotheses concerning Jesus' death, including pulmonary embolism, cardiac rupture, suspension trauma, asphyxiation, fatal stab wound, and shock. This article surveys a broad range of medical and other specialist views regarding Jesus' experience on the cross, concluding that asphyxiation or asphyxiation-dominant theories have emerged as the consensus position regarding the cause of Jesus' death. Two features of this article are significant. First, it provides a rich resource of different medical opinions regarding the effects of Jesus' crucifixion. Second, and more importantly, the survey results show that, perhaps less similar to crucifixion in general, there is a growing consensus regarding Jesus' cause of death by medical professionals. A table maps these results, summarizing for those in the medical field as well as historians and theologians what medical professionals consider to be the cause of Jesus' death.

[The wars, epidemics and destiny of Empires of Ancient World].

The article considers the features of the impact of epidemics on the course of hostilities and the fate of the states of Antiquity. Three cases are presented as examples. The first one is related to the invasion of the Assyrian King Sennacherib in Judea and the attempt of his troops to take Jerusalem. The second case is related to the epidemic in Athens in the early years of the Peloponnesian war. The third one - with the epidemic in the Roman Empire in the 2nd half of the 2nd century AD. The analysis, based on information from extant sources, permitted to conclude that the intensity and destructive effect of epidemics in the Ancient World increased gradually. To this fact is attributed the effect of "closing" the Oikumena into a single whole. However, the degree of influence of epidemics on the fate of ancient states is greatly exaggerated by the historical tradition, which developed under the influence of emotional descriptions of the tragedies and mass deaths of people.

[History of the anatomical and clinical autopsy]. / Geschichte der anatomischen und klinischen Obduktion.

The history of the autopsy is naturally also a part of the history of anatomy and pathology and spans over about 2300 years. The first documented autopsies were conducted in about 300 B.C. Thereafter, due to the prohibition of dissections due to religious, social, or hygienic reasons, a long period of stagnation took place. With the onset of the Renaissance in the 15th and 16th century, interest in the ancient sciences such as anatomy began to rise and consequently an increasing number of dissections for anatomical studies were conducted. Nevertheless, it took nearly 200 years until clinical symptoms and/or causes of disease and death were correlated with anatomical findings. In the second half of the 19th century, the clinical autopsy based on the combination of macroscopic and microscopic findings became more and more important as a precondition for the systematic description of diseases. Based on autopsy findings and together with several new techniques, modern pathology could be established at the beginning of the 20th century as a source of scientific knowledge for the clinical medicine and as a theoretical discipline of its own.

Los principios de la homeopatía, a medio camino entre lo antiguo y lo moderno / The principles of homeopathy, halfway between the old and new

Los críticos de la Homeopatía han señalado que esta materia carece de bases científicas y que hay pocas evidencias documentales que den cuenta de su eficacia.El presente trabajo es un ensayo que coloca al lector en el contexto histórico,filosófico y político que nació la Homeopatía, como un punto de partida que despuésse transforma en una exposición en la que se discute si la medicina configuradapor Samuel Hahnemann es antigua o moderna. El autor dedica gran parte de su ensayo a destacar algunas ideas fundamentales de Crítica de la razón pura, obra del célebre filosofo alemán (1724-1804) Immanuel Kant,y señala cómo, a partir de ellas, es que la medicina alopática empezó a interesarse por atender las consecuencias de la enfermedad y no la enfermedad misma. Kant actuó de buena fe y coloco en la mesa de discusión ideas revolucionarias que dieron pie a la sistematización de las ciencias modernas. Sin embargo, ello no significa, señala el autor de este artículo, que algunos conceptos utilizados en Homeopatía, como “totalidad”, “organismo” o “fuerza vital” deban ser ignorados a priori. (AU)

Critics of homeopathy have pointed out that this matter has no scientific basis andthe existing evidence is too insufficient to account for their effectiveness. This paper is a trial that places the reader in the historical, philosophical and political in which homeopathy came as a starting point, this point then transformed into an exhibition in which it is discussed whether the regime of Samuel Hahnemann is ancient or modern. The author devotes much of his trial will highlight some fundamental ideasof “Critique of Pure Reason”, by the famous German philosopher (1724-1804) ImmanuelKant, and shows how, from them, is that allopathic medicine became interestedto address the consequences of the disease and not the disease itself. Kant acted in good faith and placed on the table for discussion revolutionary ideas that led to the systematization of modern science. However, this does not mean, says the author of this article, some concepts used in homeopathy as “all”, “body” or “life force” should be ignored a priori.(AU)

Los principios de la homeopatía, a medio camino entre lo antiguo y lo moderno / The principles of homeopathy, halfway between the old and new

Los críticos de la Homeopatía han señalado que esta materia carece de bases científicas y que hay pocas evidencias documentales que den cuenta de su eficacia.El presente trabajo es un ensayo que coloca al lector en el contexto histórico,filosófico y político que nació la Homeopatía, como un punto de partida que despuésse transforma en una exposición en la que se discute si la medicina configuradapor Samuel Hahnemann es antigua o moderna. El autor dedica gran parte de su ensayo a destacar algunas ideas fundamentales de Crítica de la razón pura, obra del célebre filosofo alemán (1724-1804) Immanuel Kant,y señala cómo, a partir de ellas, es que la medicina alopática empezó a interesarse por atender las consecuencias de la enfermedad y no la enfermedad misma. Kant actuó de buena fe y coloco en la mesa de discusión ideas revolucionarias que dieron pie a la sistematización de las ciencias modernas. Sin embargo, ello no significa, señala el autor de este artículo, que algunos conceptos utilizados en Homeopatía, como “totalidad”, “organismo” o “fuerza vital” deban ser ignorados a priori.

Critics of homeopathy have pointed out that this matter has no scientific basis andthe existing evidence is too insufficient to account for their effectiveness. This paper is a trial that places the reader in the historical, philosophical and political in which homeopathy came as a starting point, this point then transformed into an exhibition in which it is discussed whether the regime of Samuel Hahnemann is ancient or modern. The author devotes much of his trial will highlight some fundamental ideasof “Critique of Pure Reason”, by the famous German philosopher (1724-1804) ImmanuelKant, and shows how, from them, is that allopathic medicine became interestedto address the consequences of the disease and not the disease itself. Kant acted in good faith and placed on the table for discussion revolutionary ideas that led to the systematization of modern science. However, this does not mean, says the author of this article, some concepts used in homeopathy as “all”, “body” or “life force” should be ignored a priori.