What is the Role of the Crucifixion in Christianity?
what about the crucifixion is meaningful to christians? is it that jesus died on the cross? is it that he was resurrected after three days instead of one day or one minute or four weeks?
as i understand it, the logistics of jesus' story seem to be what impresses most christians, but to me, they seem to be unnecessary, if not distracting. employing the dramatic manner of your exit from earth as a means to communicate a divine message seems a bit juvenile to me.
is the manner of jesus' death important? what if jesus had died of food poisoning or a heart attack? or, if he tripped and fell on the way to the crucifixion. would his story be less meaningful to christians? would jesus still be jesus?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
- Login to post comments
Also, something important to note, when God is described as "perfect", this also means he is perfect relationally. Meaning, yes, God experiences the emotions that we experience, but he experiences them at the perfect time, in the perfect amount, whereas we fly off the handle when we shouldn't, say mean things out of anger, and that sort of thing.
So, basically, what I'm saying, I guess, is I think your view of God is a bit narrow. Because of that narrow view, the cross seems silly, stupid, meaningless to you. But I have found that, as I grow in my knowledge of God and begin to understand Him better, the more significant Jesus's crucifixion becomes to me.
I do understand where you're coming from, but please realize that the same could be said for any religion: One can accept the tenets without a full reckoning, with the belief that understanding will come with time. With time, the individual can develop a personally suitable explanation.
As an example: A friend of mine recounted his visit to the local church of scientology. The representative who explained their philosophy to my friend was relatively new, and seemed unsure and less than confident in the information he was giving -- suffice it to say some of the beliefs were quite ridiculous. Yet my friend understood how the representative had managed to adopt scientology. His personal story was that he was from a broken home and had previously had a drug problem. The church had provided a point of stability and discipline for him, which took precedence over their harebrained beliefs. The longer the individual stays with scientology, his confidence in his beliefs increases. He will surely say to a newcomer that scientology seems ridiculous, but understanding comes with time.
I was previously on this journey, and firmly desired to see it through, despite several concepts which I didn't understand. I managed to come up with explanations for some of my doubts -- such as the trinity, and jesus' historical significance. (The significance of the crucifixion never crossed my mind, but I'm sure I would have come up with an explanation for that as well). There remained other concepts which I still didn't fully understand -- such as transubstaniation -- but I simply deferred them, certain that I would eventually come to understand them better. As you can probably guess, this didn't happen. I realize in retrospect that due to my desire to continue believing -- to stay on the journey, as it were -- I was concocting explanations to create the appearance of understanding and justify my continuing belief. Whatever religion (or whatever denomination of christianity) I had been raised in, I would have done the same.
I do not continue to act in this way as an atheist. That is to say, I do not deny god's existence out of a deep-seated desire to deny god; I simply see no evidence for one. I can no more accept christianity than I could scientology, entrusting that I will eventually "get it".
There are no theists on operating tables.
You said a lot without saying anything at all. As I have a narrow view of god opposite of you, ergo you have a narrow view of god. You anthropomorphize him an awful lot giving him/it human qualities.
You did not answer directly the illogic of the crucifixtion.
zarathustra-- I believe you when you say you were on the journey, and I do wonder what it was that made you decide to stop and turn around. I hope the same does not happen for me because, the way I am going now, I am growing and becoming a better person. I see progress in myself...a growing selflessness that helps me be more effective in the world. I judge whether or not I am on the right path by these improvements I notice in myself.
I'm not saying an atheist can't make self-improvements and become a better person...I just know, that, from my experience, before I decided to follow God's model, I would make improvements, then I would regress and have to start all over, I was constantly changing my mind, feeling confused about what was right. Now, I don't have the confusion or worry, because my path has been laid out, it has been followed successfully by others, and now, what is required of me is to learn how to stay on it...because, it is a narrow path and therefore cannot be walked blindly.
The parable of the sower explains it well, and I take the lesson to heart. I want to be fertile ground for God's message. That is what I hope to be. I think Jesus told us that parable as a warning, and to help explain to us why some people will stay on the path, others will turn away eventually, others won't even consider it an option...
As far as doubts and questions, I don't expect to ever have all the answers in this life, and I am at peace with that fact. I don't expect God's going to give all the answers to me, nor is he always, if ever, going to find it necessary to consult me before he does things. I think he chooses to hide some things for my own good, and I'm okay with that. I used to NOT be okay wth that, and I would search and search and pound my fists and say why why why...all that did was lead to anger and unhappiness because I was trying to control that which is not within my power to control. Finally, I have become better able to discern what is in my control, and what is not, and therefore, I have learned how to just let some things go. As a result, I am a much more peaceful person. "Let go and let God" as they say. This is a tough thing to do, at least it was for me. But sometimes, at least for my own sanity, I have to do just that.
Lastly, my evidence for God is that he has been patient and faithful to guide me on my journey. I can look back and see how he has worked in my life, and is working to slowly but surely to evolve me into a better person. I know, by comparing my life before I decided to follow God to how it is now, that His presence has made a difference. Quite honestly, it has to be God, because I have already proven to myself that without God...specifically the Christian understanding of God...I am an accident waiting to happen.
I'm not following your line of reasoning. Given that I, as a theist, study God and continually expand on my knowledge, it makes sense that my view would be broader than the view of an atheist who does not spend time contemplating such things. As for God having "human" properties, we human's actually have many intrinsic Godly properties. "We are made in His image." Yes, we have ungodly properties also. As we are made in His image, we also inherited his free will, and using our free will we sometimes make wrong decisions.
God, being perfect, has free will, but even so, always makes the right decisions. He's got the patent on that. Knowing that we are lesser than himself, he initially protected us by NOT giving us knowledge of good and evil. We decided we were curious about evil, so we looked into it. As a consequence, some of us decide evil is cooler than good and we choose to pursue that instead. I'm guessing, when God created us, he knew this was a possiblitiy. Luckily, he also has a plan to bring us back to him.
All that to make the point, yes depending on how you look at it, you can say God has human qualities; however, I think it is more accurate to say that we have inherited Godly qualities. That is why I think it is possible, to a point, to learn about God by observing people. That is one reason why I find this cyber laboratory interesting.
Okay, you stated it almost perfectly. As a theist you contemplate a being you have no proof for while ignoring evidences all around you of the absurdity of your claims. This has not given you a broader view of the world, just of your "god". This is narrow! An atheist has a broader view of the world and reality.
Again, a lot of words that really say nothing. You must understand that what you are doing is just prostyltizing. Most of us here are asking for evidences and statements based on reality, when you "preach the word" it is meaningless. To say "god created us in his image", or "god gave us a choice" is just using phrases we have all heard a million and a half times. Common christian statements that mean nothing.
It is sad you refuse to look at it with a skeptical eye.
From here on out, let just call it the:
christiFICTION!
BGH, do you have something good to offer me, which will enhance my life, make me a better human being, and thus make life better for those around me? I have related to you that by continuing to seek God, I am becoming a better person. So, I ask you, how am I harming you?
You, on the other hand, are attempting to break down and destroy something that is enhancing my life and helping me to live more positively. Now, if you were in fact able to "deconvert" me what good would you be adding to my life and to those around me?
I argue that you would not be doing me much good at all, so I further argue that you are pursuing a pointless goal...a goal that is actually harmful and negative.
Sugarfree, you dirty, dirty girl. You are a married woman. I do have something to offer that would do all those things but your husband would not like it.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! *sigh* That was funny!
Seriously, Sugarfree, BGH and everyone else has tried to offer you something that would do all of that - knowledge. Unfortunately, by limiting yourself to studying god, you limit your view dramatically. I study religion, science, philosophy, psychology...all in an attempt to do exactly what you do. It makes me feel good, it makes me a better person with better understanding of the world and it enhances my life and lives of those around me.
Cute. Is that your best answer? If it is, you haven't convinced me because I already get that from my husband.
I am sure you don't start crying because you feel "god", like you would with me.
No, there is no point in giving you any more than you are giving us. You refuse to admit you could open up your mind a little more, you refuse to answer actual counterpoints being made. You prostyltize. You are a dishonest debater. As has occured in previous threads, you preach without saying much to the topic discussed.
You haven't come to these message boards for honest discussion, you have come to give anecdotal "feelings" and "spread the word". Most of us have heard this to the point of ad naseum.
Look at jce's post if you want the best answer.
sugar, you have previously taken offense at my responses, concluding that I am mean or angry. Please realize that I am making a supreme effort to remain civil in this response.
I thought I explained (at least in part) why I "stopped the journey". As I said, I found I was assuming that my beliefs were true, and then trying to make sense of them. One simply cannot do this. One should not accept a hypothesis and then go searching for ways to support it. One should begin with observable facts and then formulate a conclusion. If one has initial doubts and confusion about beliefs, one cannot say that he or she began with the facts. In this case, one has rather assumed a hypothesis to be true, and then sought to twist the facts to fit that hypothesis.
You yourself conceded that not everything made sense to you at first; you developed a greater understanding over time. I recounted the exact same process occurring with a scientologist; you did not address this. As I strive to remain polite, I am compelled to point this out again: you repeatedly ignore the fact that any of your assertions in favor of christianity or jesus or the bible can be made in favor of any other religion. The scientologist I wrote about gave up drugs after adopting their beliefs, even though he lacked full confidence and understanding of those beliefs. As you say in reference to the christian god, the practicioner of any other religion could say that without their non-christian god, they would also be an accident in waiting.
You acknowledge that atheists are capable of "self-improvement" -- that is, they don't need to believe in a god in order to be good. You go further to say that "following god's model" made this easier for you. However, you simultaneously mention that you had initial doubts and confusion and even now don't "expect to ever have all the answers in this life", and are "at peace with that fact." It is unclear to me therefore precisely what is necessary for the "self-improvement" that you speak of. Exactly how much about "god's model" does one have to understand in order to be able eligible for self-improvement? What is the minimum threshold of doubt and confusion? Specific to this discussion: Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?
I hope you have not found me either angry or mean or morbidly obese in this response. If you do, please point out where that I can correct myself. If you intend to respond, I only ask this favor: please try not to use the pre-emptive logic that you have used up until now, where you assume your conclusion in advance (that christianity/jesus/bible are true), and then force your reasoning to proceed to that conclusion. If the only way I can follow your reasoning is to begin with the same unfounded assumption, obviously we cannot come to any understanding.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Sugarfree,
I need to step away from this discussion. I am reacting to your comments in a way that I do not care for. Though I think I have made some very valid points you refuse to respond to, the discussion is deteriorating. All you seem to want to do is preach and I want to discuss, this is aggravating. The others will continue with you I am sure.
This is ridiculous. Give me your definitions of 'knowledge' and 'wisdom.' I dont think you even know what those words mean.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
LOL, now I am laughing about that comment you made regarding what you have to offer. Ha ha ha. Thanks for the chuckle. Fair enough and thank you for being honest.
I'll meagerly try to breathe new life into the thread.
I'v had a long fascination with the details of christianity. I'm going to give my un-believer take on the meaning of the crucifiction and I'm curious about believer response.
The crucifition has 2 important parts, obviously: the death, the resurrection. As many theological critics have pointed out. These 2 things are like oil and water taken together. And it appears from the structure of christianity that they have to be taken together. But in my view, taking them together dooms christianity. However, when I separate the 2 parts I can make a lot more sense out of it and I can also see why each part would be attractive. The problem of christianity though is that the 2 parts are not separated even though they deny each other.
the death - The primary idea here is that we sinners can become cleansed by the (animal) sacrifice of jesus. It sounds weird put this way. But doing so points out the way this murder (martyr) is tied to the history of religion preceeding him. It's also self-reflective in a very normal way. We as humans generally acknowledge that we have imperfections and we strive to overcome them or some of them etc... The idea, then, was that jesus fixed a broken humanity.
the resurrection - The obvious idea here, one with obvious appeal, is that death is defeated. The resurrection was supposed to be the proof of the pudding that really there is no death, so no need to go worrying about dying anymore.
And...the obvious problem is that jesus's death was supposed to fix humanity, but the crucificion reveals that there is no death. So nothing was fixed since there was no actual death.
My interpretations are orthodox. Since I'm not a believer, it's all I have to go on. If this or that christian is not orthodox, it may be irrelevant, but I can't analyze unknown unique variations. What do other christians think of this paradox? Have you yourself had to vary the orthodox to account for the problem?
Knowledge = "the world is round" (The world is round now, but when the sun explodes, bye bye world.)
Wisdom = "love your neighbor as yourself" (The sun explodes, the world is destroyed, and we all die, our spirits live on. The world doesn't exist anymore, but love still does.)
Us Atheists don't believe in "spirits" per se ... We understand that minds, which have been called "souls" by some, can be reduced to brain function and do not exist apart from material, neuronal brains ... (some have postulated artificial intelligence that could function like minds apart from neuronal brains, but I that is neither here nor there) The point is, your dichotomy is subjective and also ahistorical. In fact, it seems simply made up ...
There is no "spirit" to live on. Once the last person is eradicated from the earth, perhaps at the destruction of our Solar System, there will be no others (that we know of) who could continue the moral precept, "Love thy neighbor as thyself ..."
I should also remind you that the precept, "Love thy neighbor ..." which Christ derived from the Torah (Leviticus 19:18), was not intended to actually apply to anyone outside of the In-group (in this case, the fledgling "nation" of Israel around the the sacking/genocide of the kingdoms of Canaan up to the Roman-Occupied Judea before the destruction of temple in 70 CE). To quote Hartung,
This is where Matthew 15:21 looks pretty embarassing - "And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Even if the moral precepts of the Bible actually did apply to us (which they don't) that would not change the reality that "spirits" don't exist (except as social constructions that pertain to our minds) and that the extinction of the only species that has ever been known to have developed advanced intelligence would spell the end of "spirit" (and thus moral precepts) in any capacity.
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
just to clarify, "atheism" doesn't account for whether "spirits" or some kind of ether exists apart from matter. I think Conn is talking more specifically about materialism than he is about atheism. Atheism from the perspective of the RRS seems to be joined with materialism.
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
hi sugarfree, can you address my response to your post? i'm interested in reading your perspective. I quoted it again below.
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
Hello mouse. I addressed it several posts back. Let me know if you want me to expand on anything I said.
So then knowledge = facts? How do facts change? The example you gave for wisdom is complete and utter nonsense. And, if what you were getting at with wisdom was along the lines of a generally agreed-upon precept, then your original statement, as previously noted, is ridiculous. General agreed-upon precepts change all the time(a woman's place is in the home. Slavery is acceptable.) Of course, as you've made abundantly clear, the truth is of no importance to you.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I'll assume that you mean the story of the crucifixion as written in the Gospels and not what may or may not have transpired historically.
As far as I can discern as a Christian (Catholic, if it matters) the crucifixion is important to Christians in several ways.
Firstly, it establishes that Jesus is fully committed to the message that he is preaching. He is willing to go through a brutal death (you might say that crucifixion was common at the time, but its brutality is undeniable) because of the message that he was delivering.
Secondly, it shows the humility of Jesus in the face of those mocking him. If the most important person who ever walked the face of the planet can carry his cross to die a miserable and embarrassing death, what are the troubles of the day to day for the Christian? It shows us that we, as humans, will never be able to live up to the humility that Jesus shows by going to his death.
Lastly, in terms of the actual crucifixion itself, the symbol of Christ on a Cross is representative of his perfection. (If you take the cross as a feminine symbol, think: the circle with the cross thing at the bottom, the female symbol.) It tells us that Christ, in the moments before his death has become a fully realized person, one who has fulfilled his mission in life.
That Jesus rose is the important thing, not the period of time, although three (think: trinity) days is just as good as any number of days. This also symbolizes the spirit of his message rising up in his followers then and today. In rising Jesus tells us that death doesn't matter, it is simply another part of life, and one that believers think can be overcome.
The reasons for Jesus being crucified versus any other means of death or execution are explained above. The fact that Jesus was turned in by one of his own, and condemned to death by people reminds us that we can reject the message of Christ. It serves as a warning that God will not force you to follow him, but rather you must choose to follow. If you wish to put him to death in your mind, he will allow it. The fact that it is told in the form of a narrative story, I think, is simply to drive home the point of what happens. As humans, and I think the tremendous amount of mythology and story that exists in all societies tells us this, stories appeal to us, and we remember their messages and their contents much better then other forms of remembering.
Quester - Welcome! Very good explaination and outline.
That the world is getting hotter is a fact. That we're all going to die(because of the warming earth) is pure conjecture. The world is getting colder is an incorrect statement, and the ice age coming is also conjecture. 1 out of 4 is not bad, for a theist.
The adage is, "Money is the root of all evil." That is not wisdom, that is an opinion. And I dont think anyone with a brain believes it is true today.
No, you are picking and choosing those that fit your statement. Just like a good theist should.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Below, a reference to the 70's ice age predictions:
http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm
What the hell does this have to do with anything? Those predictions are not FACTS. You said yourself, knowledge = facts. Like I noted in my first response to your post, you dont even know the meanings of the words you throw around.
You're really a dishonest poster. Notice in your response, GREED leads to evil. Greed/the LOVE of money does NOT equal money. If you cant see that what you are arguing is completely different from what you're saying, then I can't help you.
No, that the bible is a "time-tested" guide to morality is nothing more than your ill-informed opinion. Since you claim "the bible" is your moral compass, then I'd like to invite you to my cousin's wedding in August. She is most definitely not a virgin, so bring plenty of stones. The "changing whims of man," as you ignorantly mention, mean nothing more than some tenets of secular ethics will change, based on more and better information available to us. Some things never change, i.e. murder = bad, or helping little old lady across the path = good. However, when there is a good reason to change a position based on EVIDENCE, we do so, i.e. homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, now we see EVIDENCE piling up that shows that it is simply a genetic difference. Only moronic theists using one somewhat vague line from a 2000 year old book of fables consider homosexuality to be immoral today. Or consider it to be "curable."
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Where in my last post did I call you annoying. It seems you really want me to be mad at you, when in fact I'm not.
We're on a search for the truth here. If what you have to offer is the truth, it shouldn't have to rely on niceties to make itself known.
Once again, sugar -- in all politeness, of course -- you ignored what I put forth previously. This same line of thinking can be employed in the adoption of any religion.
Many people throughout history also have had a deep conviction that the earth is flat. You decide.
No problem. Let's try again. You related that you had doubts when you took on the "christian model", but you were certain that understanding would come with time. So apparently, having certain doubts (such as the importance of the crucifixion) did not preclude you from being a christian. Can you also doubt the virgin birth or the resurrection? Can you doubt whether jesus was a real person? Or are there a certain number of beliefs you have to accept up front?
Specific to this discussion: Does one have to "get" the crucifixion in order for self-improvement to work, or is one's capacity for self-improvement independent of acceptance and understanding of the crucifixion?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Oh geez, this is getting too ugly. Nevermind. I'm stepping out.
I know I said I was leaving this thread but I must say I notice a pattern here with our friend sugarfree. When the counter arguments get to be too much and no one gets her touchy-feely crap she leaves. If the faith is so strong, you should be able to endure any amount of questioning, right?
Or do you choose to bow out when you start to have doubts about your faith too, that way you won't have to think about it anymore?
(p.s., Your politeness is much appreciated by me.)
I'll buy that. I should have been more clear about the relationship between atheism and materialism ... However, I have yet to meet an atheist who was not a materialist or a reductionist with respect to, you know, the stuff of the multiverse.
I would argue, however, that atheism does not have to account for "spirits" or "ether" existing "apart from matter" as one cannot prove a negative ... there are no verifiable/falsifiable accounts of ethers or spirits apart from those that occur naturally, the presence of which can be detected empircally, etc. so why would we have to account for it?
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
I am not saying you are responsible for accounting for unfalsifiable ideas or theories; i'm just saying that being an atheist does not entail empiricism/materialism. Materialism seems to encompass your worldview more comprehensively than atheism does, since atheism is more specific.
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
thanks for your response, quester. i want to probe it a bit more; so, is the idea of jesus separable from the context and narrative which appeals to us?
in other words, would jesus still be jesus under more ordinary circumstances, or is the narrative necessary? are the details of his death essential for having access to the christian faith?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
If I seemed hostile(because I used the phrase, "what the hell...?" give me a break), it was only out of frustration that your arguments frequently are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. As others have pointed out, you also often avoid answering questions and ignore points that get made that run counter to your beliefs. I wasn't mad, nor you should you be. I just dont understand what you are doing here, when it's clear that A) your arguments carry ZERO weight with the folks here that respect logic and the scientific method, and B) you are completely closed off to anything that contradicts your christianity unless it has a guaranteed happy ending.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I believe that the idea of Jesus, as a savior and redeemer of a people (and if you think that Jesus came for Gentiles as well as Jews, that is everyone), is seperable from the context he lived in. In fact, you could label someone a "Christ-like" figure and mean just this and it could have nothing to do with the historical period that he lived in.
The main compenents of the narrative, the universal teachings, the death and the resurrection are essential to what Jesus is because we know of Jesus through this form. The narrative that appeals to us is important because, honestly, what good is a savior that cannot appeal to people? I believe that Jesus needs to have the extraordinary circumstances because of the (somewhat) radical message that he is delivering. Once again, I think that the narrative (and I guess if God exists, He'd agree (although you need not look to God, simply the amount of mythology and story that is part of human cultures)) is the form that is most effective in transfering truths (and not just historical ones) to humans. I'm not sure if the details of the death are absolutely necessary to having faith in Christ, but they surely make the story much more complete and much more compelling. I think that a religion, in order to be coherent, needs to have a complete story that goes along with it. (If you look to things like the Infancy Narratives, for which there is no historical evidence and which it is unlikely the Gospel writers would know anything about, you can see that that they are mostly there to complete the story, not to decieve people.) So, in sum, I think that the narrative is necessary to Christianity because it tells the story of Christianity.
..Well the romans did use crucifixion..at the time it was not a symbol of religion..and i believe jesus was crucified for no more than being wht they might of thought as an insane person.but the fact that he was crucified and died on the cross for our "sins" .and if jesus was killed about 20 years ago..i would like to quote my friend on this." we would be wearing little electric chairs around our neck..not crosses..does that mean if he was killed then would that be the sign of religion today..?
this is tricky territory here. are you saying that the circumstances of jesus' death were designed for a sentimental effect, or that it's lucky (from christianity's perspective) that circumstances befell him as such (i.e., he didn't die from pneumonia) so that people would know who jesus was?
how do you like my use of 'befell'...?
i love double parentheses in writing. you should get extra rrs points.
also, what do the infancy narratives say?
Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein
You fellas mind if a newbie chimes in?
nope.
Your questions aren't easy to answer, so bear with me if I get a little long winded. First, the answers to you Cricifixion questions. Then I'll expand on them a bit, then maybe we can discuss them, and, if you'd like, after that, I'll post my views on the Resurrection.
Is the manner of Jesus" death impotant? Yes.
Why? Through Crucufixion, he offered the most complete satisfaction for our sins. The "original sin" was pride, our desire to "be like unto God". By choosing Crucifixion as His manner of death, Jesus sought the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths. Remember that, under the Old Law, the body of an executed criminal was hung as a token that such a man was cursed by God and rejected by the people. Jesus consented to be hun upon a Cross while alive. Thus St Paul in Galatians 3:13, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written (Deut 21:23): 'Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree.'" Jesus abased himself as far as he could to offer ssatisfaction for that pride. He also atoned for our disobedience becoming "obedient unto death, even to death on the Cross" (Phil 2:
There is indeed a sentimental, or emaotionnal aspect to this form of death as well, which, far from being distrating, actually draws believers to it. It displays to us his unbounded love. He suffered the severest torments of soul and body. St Augustine says, "See, see the wounds of the Crucified, the Blood of the dying, the ransom paid by the Redeemer; His Gead bowed down to kiss us; His Heart is opened to love us; His Arms spread to embrace us; His whole Body is given to save us."
The Cross itself is of great significance. Jesus, as God-man was hanged betwee Heaven and earth, the four arms, pointing to the four corners of teh earth signify the universality of Redemption.
Crucifixion fulfilled Biblical prophecies.
Psalms 21:17-19 "They have pierced My Hands and Feet...They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture they cast lots."
Isaiah 53:7 "He was offered because it was His own will, and He opened not His mouth. He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be as dumb as a lamb beofre the shearer."
Matthew 20:19 "They shall crucify Him."
It fulfills OT types; the tree of knowledge of good and evil; Isaac carrying the wood for the holocaust for Abraham's sacrafice of his son; the Paschal lamb; the brazen serpent.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
I can't get down with Totus' godman thing, but there was some good basic christian/bible stuff there.
Prophecy needed, or at least it was thought, the messiah to die on a cross. In a different time period or culture with different prophecies, the story could've built up to all kinds of things. The death had much more significance in its time, where you have people who understood the concept of blood sacrifice. Resurrection was the central promise of the bible since the garden fiasco.
The cross is meaningful to me because of what it is a part of, but I recognize that it's value is entirely dependent upon the story as unfolded. Jesus would still be the messiah figure, so long as he was given the role. Heh, if I were directing the thing I'd probably have changed a few twists myself.
Mike Gravel for president!
For one thing: Crucifixion was a standard method of execution used by the Romans for common criminals. Thousands of others were submitted to the same punishment that jesus presumably was - some even at the same time (the 2 thieves). There is nothing singular about jesus' suffering as accounted in the gospels.
For another: Crucifixion, although an exquisite form of torture, was not the most humiliating, painful and ignominious of deaths. Read up on techniques used during the Inquisition, the Nazi Holocaust or Saddam's regime. There are far worse deaths to die than crucifixion -- which is to say countless humans have suffered greater pain and punishment in this life than has jesus.
There are no theists on operating tables.
The canned line would be something like how Jesus was beaten until he no longer resembled a man, much less himself, before being crucified. Mel Gibson showed us that AND denied your holocaust! ...but yes, I can think of stories heard in this decade that I'd prefer Jesus' fate instead of.
Mike Gravel for president!
Indeed, Zarathustra, many othe criminals of the era suffered the same fate. There were even though who were executed for crimes of which they were innocent, or petty crimes, or some things which today wouldn't be considered crimes at all. But Jesus, an innocent man, and, by all accounts actually a good man, to be executed in an exquisitely painful fashion while claiming to be doing it for the good of all is my point.
Perhaps I misspoke when i said "the" most painful, and should have said "a" most painful death. But I'm kinda thinking too, it may be futile to quantify pain after a certain point.
More important is the ignominy (sp?) of His death.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Lets consider the indignity of the supposed messiah who the jews expected(and rightfully so...in part) to overthrow the romans, being executed as a common miscreant by the roman regime instead.
Jesus was a political figure. His death followed suit. Just look at the sign.
Mike Gravel for president!