The crucifixion was a fraud.

[Markx]

It is sad to see that you are getting so frustrated and can't defend your own religious points. All I can do at this point is enjoy your frustration and your sweet christian language "ignorant jackass". It also shows how much mentaly challenged you are.

But was jesus dead or alive in the grave??. You can try and try more and more but will fail becuase if he was alive then there was no crucifiction but if he was dead then he Lied and never full fill the prophecy. You are cornered pretty bad. Keep trying . But please just don't start banging your head on the wall. We all love you here. You makes us all smile .

 

[KalvinB]

Keep trying MarkX, eventually you may make a coherent argument and cease to be an ignorant jackass.

"But was jesus dead or alive in the grave??"
"if he was alive then there was no crucifiction"

This is where the "ignorant" comes from. You don't know what it means to be dead.

Maybe you should stop being an ignorant jackass for a bit, break out a Bible and give me the definition of death. Then, if you can handle it, apply the definition of death to your question and answer it yourself.

Or can you only quote other people not having a mind to reason with yourself? Obviously the anti-Christian sites are too stupid to make this connection. So far you're not showing yourself to be any better.

Ben

 

[Markx]

Hmm.........why don't you tell us all what death means. I really don't know. Please tell me what does it means.

 

[Tiassa]

Such sacrifice ....

Thursday has both day and night as I said

Right ... and in one post you accounted for Thursday-day in order to call Markx a jackass. And then in another you rely on Thursday-night in order to call Markx a jackass.

And, since the vagary is, well ... so vague ... I'm not inclined to agree that you even have a point.

It doesn't matter in terms of your salvation, but it matters enough to call Markx a jackass?

Oh well, such is the nature of the sacrifice of the intellect.

And people wonder why I use that phrase?


Tiassa

 

[KalvinB]

"Oh well, such is the nature of the sacrifice of the intellect.

And people wonder why I use that phrase?"

Because you're a jackass? You've somehow managed to delude yourself into thinking that flowering up your insults makes you any less an asshole/jackass for using them. Jackass. Maybe if you weren't so obsessed over imaginary contradictions you're be less of a jackass and more worth talking to.

MarkX:

"why don't you tell us all what death means. I really don't know. Please tell me what does it means."

If you don't know what the Biblical definition of death is then you're pretty much an asshole aren't you? Going around accusing people of illiteracy and brainwashing because YOU don't understand a simple term that has a one verse definition which you're too much of a jackass to look up.

I'm not going to tell you. Make yourself less of an asshole and find it. You can't very well come in here and pretend to know something when you can't even define a simple term now can you?

Ben

 

[Adam]

I have to say, KalvinB, that's one of the funniest message board posts I've ever seen.

 

[Tiassa]

Around and around and around ... a perfect circle?

Blonde Cupid

It may seem that way to you, tiassa, based on your interpretation of that portion of that one verse. I think it would be a good idea if we finish it here… "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life."

So, if you understand that, then you'll understand this:

What we got, tiassa, was the fulfillment of God*s promise. What we got was the Word of God* made flesh. We got the Son, the Word, for the entirety of His life in the flesh, here on earth… from the moment of His birth to the moment of His death on the cross and beyond. The gift has not been taken back. After 2000 years, the Word remains with us to this very day. The gift of the Word is timeless. It is a gift for all ages. Whether you consider it for better or for worse, the Word’s existence and it’s affect on our lives is evidenced in this very discussion. As a matter of fact, the Word has been with you daily for at least the past three years (if I remember correctly, you stated that you have been coming here daily to discuss matters of the Word with Christians daily for that length of time). The best thing of all is that with the fulfillment of God*s promise of the Resurrection came the promise of eternal life for all of us. Again, in its entirety... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life. God* has come through with the promise of the Word thus far and we can trust that God*s promise which came with the Resurrection will be fulfilled.

So what you're describing is just a process? No sense of sacrifice? No sense of suffering?

Thank you, then, for proving that the crucifixion is a fraud. I mean, technically, it's unnecessary to the redemption of souls. God could have achieved the same effect pissing in a bucket.

If you would like another chance to make your point, consider it from this perspective: What was involved in God giving his Son? That is, what is the process taking place. So God hops down in the form of His Son in the flesh and goes through the world and performs a few miracles and then lets Himself get tacked up on the Cross in a demonstration that, by your description above, does not appear to have any relation to the redemption it achieves. It seems a random symbol at best.

There's nothing in your rhetoric that I don't understand. It's just that the significance of the event is severely reduced so that it seems any token demonstration by God (e.g. pissing in a bucket) could effect redemption.

A clarification, please:

he gift of the Word is timeless. It is a gift for all ages. Whether you consider it for better or for worse, the Word’s existence and it’s affect on our lives is evidenced in this very discussion. As a matter of fact, the Word has been with you daily for at least the past three years (if I remember correctly, you stated that you have been coming here daily to discuss matters of the Word with Christians daily for that length of time).

What, pray tell, has this to do with anything? Why are you responding with dogma instead of exploring the scriptural basis for that dogma? The end result is what I'v enoted above, that you've reduced the significance of the crucifixion to a token event.

As evidenced by the Resurrection of the Word, death is transient.

I'll tell you what, Blonde Cupid, if you're not going to actually read the posts you're responding to, then don't effing bother. Stop wasting my time if you're not going to actually read what people are saying. It's rude, small-minded, and, unfortunately, expected. However, I will at least remind you of a point that you have chosen not to respond to:

the a priori of Cris' argument--e.g. that God exists--isn't as relevant to the abstract considerations of what we're discussing. Have you ever, for instance, read a bad mystery novel in which the final exposition of the whodunit makes absolutely no sense? (As a literary note, what I'm referring to, for example, is when the "frame-up" of the apparent guilty party is exposed and the reader realizes they were given no clues toward this conclusion; it is, literally, for the reader, out of thin air.) Does it matter whether or not we assume The Detective and The Victim and The Butler, as such, existed? Or can we look at what the story tells us and determine that it doesn't add up the way it's explained?

What would you like me to explain about this? I would greatly appreciate if you actually paid attention to the point.

Is it confusing? Can you not translate one a priori to the other?

For all the theists complain of atheistic stubbornness, why is it that when an atheist enters the arena and works with what is before them, they are accused of holding a priori views?

For instance, what part of this excerpt, boldfaced for you in my prior response, doesn't make sense? We could, I suppose, honor a standard that says since your Book cannot be demonstrated true, it is mere fiction (like the mystery novel) and therefore not worthy of being discussed in the Religion Forum. If you would like to do that, we'd all greatly appreciate if all the Christians took their posts over to the Art & Culture Forum.

But, if you would like for us to consider the gift God gave us as alleged in the Bible, well ...? If Christians are not prepared to give consideration to such ideas as they encounter in their evangelizations, then they shouldn't be evangelizing.

What is so hard about stepping back and examining the scripture that lies beneath the dogma?

And we now have knowledge of our station unto God*... What now?

And how do you know?

First off, I thought you had faith. Is there some objective proof of the validity of the Bible and God's grace that you can provide, so that we can know? Or is it just faith?

As pointed out previously, as promised, God* gave us the "gift" of the Word which is still with us today. The gift is timeless.

For God so loved the world that He made no real effort? Why are you downplaying the significance of the crucifixion in favor of dogma?

Are you conceding the reduced significance? Fine. Because then we can go back to Cris' topic post and finally put this topic to rest:

Christianity makes a massive issue out of God sacrificing his son to save mankind. In fact it is the essential basis for Christianity, the alleged atonement. And as Loone says, a supreme sacrifice. But did God really make a sacrifice; was the claim at least equal to that of me sacrificing my daughter?

As Loone, whose standard we are originally examining, has claimed the "Ultimate Sacrifice", you're handing Cris the point by reducing the significance of the crucifixion with dogmatic needs.

Insofar as I can tell, Blonde Cupid, your post tells me that you think someone got tacked to a Cross and that's good enough for you. As Cris noted, Christianity makes a massive issue out of God's giving his Son. By relying on dogma as your answer, you're givign the point away. The crucifixion does not represent an "Ultimate Sacrifice".

As I've been pointing out, the notion of Christ's suffering is bunko, as well. In this sense, the crucifixion does not represent an "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Sterile dogma without any measure of value; the mere completion of the process effects redemption--Jesus should have just solved a Rubik's cube. That would have done it. (Knowing all time because he is of God, Jesus could just pull one out of thin air regardless of the fact that Rubik's cubes wouldn't appear for a while, and that really would have amazed folks.)

As evidenced by the fulfillment of God*s promise concerning the Word, we now know that death is transient and we will know this riding our butts in... Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being tied to a pillar and having the flesh of your back torn and ripped open by the viscious lash of a whip - over and over and over again - until your back was so torn and mutilated that there was no fresh meat for the whip to tear and rip - until each new lash dug deeper into a freshly opened wound? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of hundreds of thorns being pushed into your scalp and forehead? Knowing this, would you still want to carry the burden of your own cross uphill for what must seem forever, tired and so exhausted from the beating and the loss of blood that you can hardly carry your own weight, never mind the weight of the cross, with the flesh of your back freshly torn and bleeding, with your head bleeding, with your tormenters prodding you and clubbing you and pushing the thorns into your head farther and farther each time you dare to stumble. Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being nailed to a cross and hung up to die a slow and torturous death? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of of being sliced open under your ribs and having your internal wounds drenched in a burning liquid?

Well, therein lies the point: "I'm God ... whoopee."

And in order to spare the inevitable digression on megalomania, I will clarify: having divine knowledge, and divine power, I would be approaching those pains from a far different perspective. You note, what must seem forever ... okay ... now we're onto something.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't know his role? Of course he did, else you wouldn't have written that silly paragraph. But you're being quite arrogant if you think you understand what perspective Jesus had. Are you claiming the same knowledge, at this moment, that Jesus had?

As long as your butt was still in tact so that you could ride yourself in, it wouldn't be tough for you if you knew where you were going?

Christ on a pony ... what does anyone's butt have to do with it?

Look, if I had planned this for that many generations, had hurt that many people and ordered that many killings and strifes as God ordered in the Bible, and knowing that the only reason I had to do all of that was because it was how I wanted it to be ... frankly, I'd look forward to it finally being over. This is the Glory!

Yeah. And He endured the excrutiating pain and suffering for us as promised. And the Word is still with us today as promised. And we can trust in the promise of the Resurrection - as promised.

You have not established that he endured excruciating pain and suffering. At this point, you have now brougt the topic back to its starting point.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[matticiousg]

Tiassa,
First let me appologise for taking so long to reply. I needed more time to give your posts proper consideration in order to hopefully make a stronger argument.

to get started:

Of the catechism ... does this imply, then that God and Man are not disparate states? Such as, for instance, square circle? Again, in the longer run, this idea becomes vital... I hope to explain that vital necessity as we go

I agree, infact I think the answer to the question is extremely vital to the discussion at hand. Unfortunately, I had not understood this concept very well and led myself to some completely incorrect conclusions (humorously enough they might even be considered a form of docetism. *sigh* well at least I'm learning). However, in researching this topic I found some important discoveries that I think shed new light on the subject at hand.

First let me explain my incorrect conclusions: I had assumed that in becoming human while still remaining devine Jesus retained all the special abilities that comes with being God. (e.g. complete knowledge of the intimate workings of the universe) In reference to your question, I think this might amount to the creation of a squared circle; for, how can one retain all of the special abilities that come with being limitless and still remain competely human which would obviously imply a limited existence. (I don't understand why this never occured to me before. But alas, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, the dangers of blind faith are ever present)

However, quite the contrary, the catechism specifically states that Jesus, in becoming human, "emptied" himself to do so. I originally took this to mean that he humbled himself, but it really means he gave up any devine abilities that prevented him from becoming completely human. Or as the Catechism puts it:

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.[99]

also:

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man",[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".[103]

Still this evidence begs the question: In what way did Jesus still retain his devine nature? Of this the Catechism states:

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107]

and also:

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.[109]

I feel that this demonstrates that the method Jesus employed to become human essentially avoids the pitfall of creating "a squared circle".

On a side note, I find the notion that logic establishes a limit to what God can do rather absurd. The way I see it, something is considered logically impossible because we can find no way it can possibly exist within the realms of what we consider to be reality. Just because we as humans cannot find a way for something like a squared circle to exist does not mean God cannot do it. It only means he chooses not to. For which I am gratefull because I imagine a universe where stuff like that happened would be completely uninteligible to us. But that really doesn't have much relevance to this discussion and would be more appropriate for a different thread.

Returning back to the topic at hand, I'd say that this new perspective certainly gives more weight to Blonde Cupid arguments about the sacrifice involved in the actuall becoming of flesh. It appears that Jesus infact gave up quite alot in order to become human, therein satisfying the requirement of a loss. Also since Jesus is human and humans apparently can't give up their limitations, I'd say the loss is quite permanent.

I contend as well that before Jesus "emptied" himself God and Jesus experienced a union that was far more intimate than could be achieved after Jesus became human, for the level in which Jesus and God could share an intimacy would be limited by Jesus' humanity. Which when applied to the argument above indicates a permanent loss of probably immense value.

Still the question of wether the crucifixion was meaningfull or even necessary hasn't been fully addressed yet. In my previous post I feel I demonstrated accurately that the crucifixion fullfilled all the requirements necessary for it to be a religious sacrifice. Still I agree that in order for it to truly have meaning, or at least more meaning than say a burnt offering, the topic of suffering must be addressed. This is something I had meant to address in my previous post but the necessity of sleep won out so I omitted it.

However, the more I consider it feel I need some clarification on what would be considered proper grounds upon which to address it. For instance given the context and scope of this disscussion would it be proper to cite evidence from the bible? (i.e. given the nature of this discussion are we considering the bible as some form of credible witness to the events we are discussing) Or perhaps, is it necessarry to extrapolate from certain beliefs that suffering did occur. If so, is the belief that Jesus took on the sins of the world when he was crucified an acceptable belief to use as grounds? How about the implications that belief?

In the meantime I'd like to address some other issues that have been raised.

Seriously, I'm thinking what everyone needs to do is watch Soul Man; ...

the whole of this paragraph is addressed

"it's the Cosby decade"
I've actually seen (suffered through) quite a few times. But I'd say that the analogy doesn't really apply. As was noted earlier in this post Jesus has a human soul. Human souls are permanent. So Jesus could never actually stop being human. Unlike C Thomas Howell who had the opption of returning to being white.

You read Descartes? I made that joke about German and French philosophers a couple times already. Hmmm ... now you've offered a reason to point to one of them. Descartes is a great place to start. Essentially, how do you know you're not dreaming right now? It's a nasty, nasty quandary. How, in fact, do you know that you are the dreamer?

I can't say I've read Descartes in any depth but I am familiar with the his demon dilema. Right now I'm at the point where I'd say I'm probably not the dreamer if in fact its all a dream. I reasons for this are:
A. I seem to have no control over what I experience as reality so something other than what I experience as "I" must be creating this reality. (note I distinguish my subconscience as seperate from "I" because by it's very definition I it is somewhere other than the "I" which I experience.)
B. The reality which I experience reflects a complexity and consistency that is far greater than "I" could ever create. (my ADD helps to resolve this as my thoughts tend to be rather tangental and flighty)

Faith is affirmed, else it is blind or incorrect. That is, your faith will prove out or it won't, or you'll never find out. One or the other or the other. Well, sort of. But skepticism is a healthy facet of religious faith. Faith in God? Trust yourself. Faith in dogma? Skepticism on all levels works best. And it would make a wonderful thread; I can't recall the last time we delved that issue here in any way.

The irony I was refering to was that in my experience, Skeptics tend to be atheistic while the religiously inclined tend to be just the opposite.

Also your note about faith and affirmation temps me give me one the reasons I maintain my faith so vigorously but since it is a very subjective affirmation I can't reasonably expect you to believe it, so I'll omit it. (however if I've managed to pique your curiosity I'm willing to share it on the grounds that you understand I'm not submitting it as a genuine proof)

I think it's been quite clearly outlined that the alleged suffering of the divine agents in the crucifixion comedy is a different state than suffering in human beings.

True, but the difference in state does not neccessarily lead to the conclusion that the suffering is somehow dimminished, only that the suffering must be considered in reference to the being experiencing the suffering.

How, for instance, are those dogmas established? In the longer run, this becomes vital to the topic; for the moment, I propose it as food for thought.

I'm having difficulty answering this as I'm not quite sure what your asking. Are you looking for the specific process? Are you looking for what they are founded on? Where they come from? I think perhaps a explanation of why things become dogma might help.

In most cases the Church is compelled to adress certain issues through dogma when confusion arises about what we (Catholics) are supposed to believe, such as when heresies pop up like docetism. However, in no case what-so-ever does the church ever take the opportunity to make up new beliefs. Anything that becomes dogma must not contradict beliefs that make up the Tradition handed down from the appostles. This is why, as you might have noticed in places like the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church goes to great lengths to demonstrate its dogmas represent beliefs that were held by christians from the very earliest point possible.

Well, I'm getting tired so I'm going to try and give a nice summation of how I see things standing as of right now.

Above all else I feel that I've demonstrated that I don't know everything, even regarding my own religion.
I feel I've demonstrated that the crucifixion does satisfy all the requirements for it to be a scarifice.
The issue of magnitude has obviously not been sufficiently addressed. (at least by me)
I feel I've demonstrated that Jesus' incarnation did involve a loss of immense value to both God and himself, thus satisfying even Cris' requirements for a sacrifice.
Still this doesn't resolve the issue of meaning in the crucifixion only meaning in the incarnation.

I eagerly await your reply as it will probably lead to me learning something else. And hopefully the clarification I requested regarding proper a priori will help me address the real meat and potatoes of this discussion, namely suffering.
-Matt

 

[Markx]

Death according to Bible means nothing else but Death. Unless you can provide your own version of Death since you are a dictionary in yourself, since you have your own meaning of things and events and what ever justify your cause. Keep trying to play a word game and manipulate the truth. You are not getting any where by calling me or other's Jackass. I also notice for some reason you like the word "ass" a lot. But that's your personal problem and I don't want to know about it.


Merriam's Dictionary

Main Entry: death
Pronunciation: 'deth
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English deeth, from Old English dEath; akin to Old Norse dauthi death, deyja to die -- more at DIE
Date: before 12th century
1 : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life --
2 : the cause or occasion of loss of life <drinking was the death of him>
3 capitalized : the destroyer of life represented usually as a skeleton with a scythe
4 : the state of being dead
5 a : the passing or destruction of something inanimate <the death of vaudeville> b :




King James Dictionary

Die the death


"Surely die".


For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him DIE THE DEATH. (Matthew 15:4)






Easton's Bible Dictionary
The following is the results of your search for death.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant Searches
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Eternal Death



Death: May be simply defined as the termination of life. It is represented under a variety of aspects in Scripture:


1. "The dust shall return to the earth as it was" (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

2. "Thou takest away their breath, they die" (Psalms 104:29)

3. It is the dissolution of "our earthly house of this tabernacle"

(2 Corinthians 5:1) the "putting off this tabernacle" (2 Peter 1:13, 14)

4. Being "unclothed" (2 Corinthians 5:3,4)

5. "Falling on sleep" (Psalms 76:5; Jeremiah 51:39; Acts 13:36; 2 Peter 3:9)

6. "I go whence I shall not return" (Job 10:21)


14. Jesus has by his own death taken away its sting for all his followers (1 Corinthians 15:55-57)

15. There is a spiritual death in trespasses and sins, i.e., the death of the soul under the power of sin (Romans 8:6; Ephesians 2:1,3) (Colossians 2:13)



More on death and Dead.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=death


:bugeye:

Is there any thing else we need to know about death KalvinB?.

 

[Cris]

Hi Matt,

A good start to sciforums, welcome.

….It appears that Jesus infact gave up quite alot in order to become human, ……

So when he performed miracles, that was what, a sixth sense maybe? I’m human and I’d give a lot to have such awesome powers. And did Jesus ignore these powers so he could say, well I’m human really, just forget that I have godly powers? Yeah right. There was no way he didn’t know he was very different to humans. And you go on to point out he had special knowledge of the divine. Note you say ‘knowledge’ not a guess or a hope that results from human faith, but real certainty.

So he may have given up some of the luxuries of godly living, we could say he was roughing it while on earth, but it was only around 30 years. What is that compared to the infinite lifetime of a god? Effectively zero.

If he could have been deprived of his special knowledge then maybe we could consider him as a human, but if that deprivation were achieved then he would not have been special in any way, and no one would have noticed him. No the myth only works if he is a god in human form and with godly knowledge.

Cris

 

[Cris]

blonde_cupid,

No. My objection is to the contradiction in your argument.

You assert, for the sake of your argument, that the resurrection is true. (Death is temporary).

You then assert, in the same argument, that people would view the issue of their child's death as if the resurrection had not occurred. (Death is permanent).

It is a logical contradiction in your argument.

The point of the topic is to highlight a temporary alleged death of a god with the permanent death of a human. I don’t see a contradiction.

The difference in viewing resurrection, afterlife, etc, comes from the degree of certainty or lack thereof. From God’s/Jesus’ perspective there is no doubt. They know with absolute certainty that Jesus is immortal and cannot be lost. Humans, in contrast, have no knowledge that they might survive death. Even if they do survive death they still would not know about it beforehand when a sacrifice is being considered.

For the sacrifice made by God to be considered on equal terms with a human perspective God must not know in advance that his son will return. If everyone knows with absolute certainty that they will survive death, then there would never be any emotional pain when someone dies, whether through sacrifice or otherwise. But God does know what is going to happen and so cannot suffer any emotional pain. The sacrifice of Jesus can never be considered on equal emotional terms to a human equivalent.

From God’s perspective death is temporary. From a human perspective death is permanent. But you have suggested that this argument rests on a non-believer perspective. Well of course, it doesn’t make sense otherwise. The story of the crucifixion is an attempt to convince non-believers that a special event has occurred and that they no longer have to die if they believe in Jesus. And the mechanism is that they are meant to see the emotionalism of an ultimate sacrifice made by God and equate it to the human equivalent of making a sacrifice. But that comparison cannot work because God has made no effective sacrifice – it is meaningless without a loss and emotional pain.

Cris

 

[Adam]

I was under the impression that Jesus gave up nothing whatsoever to become human. That he was born and raised human, and didn't hear a damn thing about his supposedly divine spirit until he was 18 or 30 or something. Sounds like a psychotic break to me...

 

[Cris]

blonde_cupid,

would you still want to endure the pain of being tied to a pillar and having the flesh of your back torn and ripped open by the viscious lash of a whip - over and over and over again - until your back was so torn and mutilated that there was no fresh meat for the whip to tear and rip - until each new lash dug deeper into a freshly opened wound? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of hundreds of thorns being pushed into your scalp and forehead? Knowing this, would you still want to carry the burden of your own cross uphill for what must seem forever, tired and so exhausted from the beating and the loss of blood that you can hardly carry your own weight, never mind the weight of the cross, with the flesh of your back freshly torn and bleeding, with your head bleeding, with your tormenters prodding you and clubbing you and pushing the thorns into your head farther and farther each time you dare to stumble. Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being nailed to a cross and hung up to die a slow and torturous death? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of of being sliced open under your ribs and having your internal wounds drenched in a burning liquid?

As tiassa so nicely indicates you are enforcing the whole point of my topic. Here again you are trying to evoke a human emotional response. All this pain and torment are completely relevant to the human condition. But Jesus was a god and he knew it. The pain was going to be very temporary from his immortal perspective, and on the other side is paradise. Heck, if I knew (with certainty) that I was going to find eternal paradise after a short period of pain then that seems like a no-brainer to me.

The crucifixion, as tiassa notes can only be an empty gesture, or in my terms a fraud.

Cris

 

[KalvinB]

MarkX:

I told you there was a one verse definition of death. The dictionary isn't going to help you out.

"dead" and "death" are the only two words you need to search for in the Bible and one of the verses containing one of the words will answer your question.

Ben

 

[KalvinB]

Jesus gave up his divinity to become a human. And a servant at that.

Ben

 

[Cris]

Kalvinb,

Jesus gave up his divinity to become a human. And a servant at that.

So his ability to perform miracles, was what, an oversight?

Cris

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by KalvinB
MarkX:

I told you there was a one verse definition of death. The dictionary isn't going to help you out.

"dead" and "death" are the only two words you need to search for in the Bible and one of the verses containing one of the words will answer your question.

Ben

There are many verse regarding death and dead, Which one should I use to take out meaning??. By they way second two dictionaries I used are Biblical dictionaries.

Which verse would you like me to use, So it will justify your cause??


Search Results
"dead" was found 324 times in 299 verses. OT

Search Results
"dead" was found 170 times in 155 verses in the Old Testament NT


Search Results
"death" was found 387 times in 359 verses OT and NT

Can you be little bit more clear?:bugeye:

 

[blonde_cupid]

Cris,

***The point of the topic is to highlight a temporary alleged death of a god with the permanent death of a human. I don’t see a contradiction.***

I must ask... If this is the case, then why did you insist that you were not talking about death?

By the way, Jesus was God* in human form and had the same pain receptors as the rest of us.

My point was that, in your attempted proof, you asserted for the sake of argument that the Resurrection was true. Therefore, the death could not be alleged. Resurrection is of the "dead". Therein lies one of the contradictions.

***The difference in viewing resurrection, afterlife, etc, comes from the degree of certainty or lack thereof.***

Exactly. God* promised an afterlife. God* also promised to provide proof of life beyond what we perceived death to be. If you accept the Resurrection as being true, as you did for the sake of your argument, then the only basis that you have for not believing and for calling God* a liar and a fraud comes from your own will.

***From God’s/Jesus’ perspective there is no doubt. They know with absolute certainty that Jesus is immortal and cannot be lost.***

And if you accept the Resurrection as being true, as you did for the sake of your argument, and you trust God*s Word based on the fulfillment of promises and the objective evidence of the Resurrection itself, then you have no doubt. You know with absolute certainty that we are all immortal as God* promised and that we cannot be lost to death in the way you perceive death to be.

(And, yes, you can know if you are open to other modes of knowledge rather than subjectively limiting your knowledge to the appearance of truth derived from the scientific method).

Do you think that those of us who know that we will all rise again because we accept the Resurrection as being true, not just for the sake of argument, suffer less than those who don't know... non-believers such as yourself? Is suffering and sacrifice relative to a person's knowledge of the afterlife or their belief system?

***For the sacrifice made by God to be considered on equal terms with a human perspective God must not know in advance that his son will return.***

The "giving" in John 3:16 was not a sacrifice, it was a gift. The sacrifice was made by the Son. It was the Son, the Word of God* made flesh, that was the sacrifice. There are many humans who know that we will all rise again. Is the pain and suffering and sacrifices made by our children any less than yours?

***If everyone knows with absolute certainty that they will survive death, then there would never be any emotional pain when someone dies, whether through sacrifice or otherwise.***

Again, there are many people who know with absolute certainty that they will survive death as you perceive it. Do you think that they experience less emotional pain than you? Is pain and suffering relative to knowledge and belief?

***But God does know what is going to happen and so cannot suffer any emotional pain.***

And what is your objective proof of this statement?

If I know that my father is going to die and rise again, then I cannot suffer any emotional pain?

***The sacrifice of Jesus can never be considered on equal emotional terms to a human equivalent.***

Is that what you believe? I know differently.

***From God’s perspective death is temporary. From a human perspective death is permanent.***

From my perspective, death is temporary and I know I'm not God*.

***But you have suggested that this argument rests on a non-believer perspective.***

It does.

***Well of course, it doesn’t make sense otherwise.***

Exactly. Your original post doesn't make sense. It failed to prove fraud on the part of God*.

***The story of the crucifixion is an attempt to convince non-believers that a special event has occurred and that they no longer have to die if they believe in Jesus.***

The crucifixion did not prove the afterlife, Cris. The Resurrection did. Death is temporary whether we believe in Jesus or not. By the way, there were no believers (in Jesus) before the Resurrection.

***And the mechanism is that they are meant to see the emotionalism of an ultimate sacrifice made by God and equate it to the human equivalent of making a sacrifice.***

That is the mechanism that you perceive based on your interpretation of "part" of one Biblical verse. Again, that God* gave his only Son, the Word of God* made flesh, was a gift. It was not a sacrifice. The sacrifice was made in the flesh by the Son to the Father. Your attempted analogy in your original post was backwards.

***But that comparison cannot work because God has made no effective sacrifice – it is meaningless without a loss and emotional pain.***

You are right that the comparison does not work in that the Father did not make the sacrifice. That was just your interpretation. The Son, the Word of God* made flesh, made the sacrifice. The Father gave us a gift so that we could know the truth, and so that all who believe in it might not perish. It is the most meaningful gift that man has ever gotten and it is still with us today. Whether you receive it or not is up to you.

I do not limit my knowledge exclusively to that derived from the scientific method. Therefore, I know there is an afterlife, Cris. Now prove to me that I do not experience loss and emotional pain.

 

[Markx]

***By the way, Jesus was God* in human form and had the same pain receptors as the rest of us.****

I can't decide, should I cry? or should I laugh? on this statement.

 

[Tiassa]

MatticiousG

MatticiousG

To the one hand, the difficulty I have with catechism is that it is dogma; part of what we hope to get at is the scripture behind the dogma and whether people's dogmatic-seeming faith is verified by the Bible. Toward that, I will admit that the topic does indeed seem unfair: Loone is Loone; it's hard to reconcile anything he says to reality. So it at least seems unfair, except that the dogmatic answer Cris addressed in the topic post do, in fact, seem fairly common.

To the other, I may still be able to address the issues without the footnotes of scriptural verification of catechismal points. In other words, I don't want to ask yo to go back and get them, either. If it's important enough, one of us will get to it.

I had assumed that in becoming human while still remaining devine Jesus retained all the special abilities that comes with being God. (e.g. complete knowledge of the intimate workings of the universe) In reference to your question, I think this might amount to the creation of a squared circle; for, how can one retain all of the special abilities that come with being limitless and still remain competely human which would obviously imply a limited existence. (I don't understand why this never occured to me before. But alas, as Pope John Paul II pointed out, the dangers of blind faith are ever present)

This is a common assumption, and right near the source of the difficulty. What I have understood is that that the Catholics recognize the difficulty of supernatural conscience and the magnitude of the crucifixion.

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.[99]

Is it a sin to even think it? I seem to recall ... yes. Is Jesus' symbolic temptation in the desert enough, then, to compensate for the catechismal assertion that Jesus did not sin? Imagine a teenager who does not lust a girl. Some Christians were upset with Last Temptation of Christ because, well ... it made Christ too human; e.g. being tempted by a woman.

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107] [

Was Jesus a psychiatric case? There is a reason for this question. Human knowledge, not by itself but by its union with the Word ....

At this point, I think you might see my objection coming

For now, let me point to Luke 3.22 and point out that no human has that.

But ... to the next catechismal point:

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

So what did he know? That he was the Son of God in whom the Father was well-pleased. That he would be raised upon his destruction. He knew when his Divine nature was affected, as he was aware when a woman touched his cloak and was healed. This does not sound like the knowledge of a human mind.

In the end, we would have to pick out the footnotes to the catechism and debate each one of those, but as a general trend, I hope you understand why I'm disagreeing with the catechismal points.

I feel that this demonstrates that the method Jesus employed to become human essentially avoids the pitfall of creating "a squared circle".

I'll object on the grounds that, accepting the Bible as factual, it is a fact that Jesus had certain knowledge and security on the Cross that human beings are not entitled to.

On a side note, I find the notion that logic establishes a limit to what God can do rather absurd.

Technically, you'll find me in full agreement. I disagree that it's not relevant to the thread since it is a Catholic faith issue; I'll cite that out later if I haven't already, but for now .. to the topic at hand.

It appears that Jesus infact gave up quite alot in order to become human, therein satisfying the requirement of a loss. Also since Jesus is human and humans apparently can't give up their limitations, I'd say the loss is quite permanent.

It's a good point, but I counter thus:

• Billy Joel--We didn't start the fire .... Imagine for a second that you have died in a fire while rescuing someone. An amazing sacrifice. You gave your life so that someone else could live. How does that sacrifice change if you know that you're not actually going to die, just that someone will think you're dead? Furthermore, does it change the nature of your sacrifice if you set the house on fire so that you could have someone to go rescue and give the appearance, at least, of dying for others?

• Was Jesus merely responding, then, to voices in his head, and what does that say from there about Christian development? If he could not escape his human limitations, then what of Luke 3.22, what of rebuilding the temple? Does it mean, then, that a guy told a story, got a lot of buzz about him, got put down, and the resulting church is merely based on a guy who had faith that what he was saying is true? Herein we find a true sacrifice, though I think it undermines the divine redemption supposedly effected. Which human limitations can Jesus not shed? Are the maimed still disfigured in Heaven? Here, be saved; spend eternity in the pain of your disability .... I think we can agree not. Is Jesus the only one not made whole by his union with God? Now that's a stickier question, but I think again we can agree not. Well, okay, you'll be surprising me otherwise.

I contend as well that before Jesus "emptied" himself God and Jesus experienced a union that was far more intimate than could be achieved after Jesus became human, for the level in which Jesus and God could share an intimacy would be limited by Jesus' humanity. Which when applied to the argument above indicates a permanent loss of probably immense value

Fifth time's a charm ... I was stumbling over this one until I picked out the word before.

Is Jesus of the same essence (ousia) and nature (homoousion) as the Father? (cf Nicene Creed) What of the whole of God's essence is permanently lost? What of the immutable nature of God is changed?

And here is an interesting facet of this debate. I don't think the debate is new in any terms that Cris or I have put it; Markx has his own points, but they, too, seem to be familiar issues of faith. What seems to be happening in the current debate is that those who detract the crucifixion seem to be simply rejecting a number of a priori. For instance, the Catechism was not written in an effort to determine the validity of faith, but to provide a dogmatic template for faith based on an idea already presupposed to be true.

Still the question of wether the crucifixion was meaningfull or even necessary hasn't been fully addressed yet. In my previous post I feel I demonstrated accurately that the crucifixion fullfilled all the requirements necessary for it to be a religious sacrifice. Still I agree that in order for it to truly have meaning, or at least more meaning than say a burnt offering, the topic of suffering must be addressed. This is something I had meant to address in my previous post but the necessity of sleep won out so I omitted it.

I'll hand you that one without objection; furthermore, the necessity of sleep is, indeed necessary.

More than a burnt offering .... I believe that is one of the vital facets of the issue. And, hopefully, we shall at least find some new insight, if not answers, to the questions of faith presented.

However, the more I consider it feel I need some clarification on what would be considered proper grounds upon which to address it. For instance given the context and scope of this disscussion would it be proper to cite evidence from the bible? (i.e. given the nature of this discussion are we considering the bible as some form of credible witness to the events we are discussing) Or perhaps, is it necessarry to extrapolate from certain beliefs that suffering did occur. If so, is the belief that Jesus took on the sins of the world when he was crucified an acceptable belief to use as grounds? How about the implications that belief?

An excellent issue ...

• Propriety of Biblical evidence: Some of us perceive a difference between dogma and the scriptural justifications thereof. The Bible is entirely appropriate; we, the detractors, have been using it, well ... mercilessly.
• Nature of the Bible: If it is permissible, I would point you back several posts toward considerations on the validity of a mystery novel. We are accepting that the Bible asserts a truth; it is fair to work within that asserted truth in order to determine its validity.
• Extrapolate/beliefs/suffering: If the scriptural justification for the belief holds relative toward its end, then it is a valid point toward that end.
• Sins of the world/implications: If it can be established that Jesus took on the sins of the world, then yeah. However, as per the above note, we might debate the term took on the sins of the world Depending on that resolution, we still may have an issue of the degree of sacrifice, the manner of effecting resurrection, and so forth. In the end, the issue points back to the conflict expressed in the topic post.

Just as the question we've considered about the nature of catechismal citations; so far I think we've done fine without the scriptural justification for each catechismal point, but at some point, those justifications become vital to the resolution of the topic.

It is largely the difference between dogmatic belief (prescribed and proscribed interpretation of the Bible, mandated as condition of faith) and the scriptural justifications thereof. Genesis is one of my favorite examples, but the digression is lengthy on most occasions. Suffice to say: The serpent told the truth and God lied in the Garden--I see this in scripture, but it is obviously not dogmatic belief. (A topic exists somewhere in the last several months' topics here; I'm happy to go through it again, but it would be a lengthy digression to the current topic.)

But that seems to be what the detractors of the crucifixion are after; there is a dichotomy we perceive between expressed faith (dogma) and the source of faith (scripture). It's a riddle, as such, as old as the faith; while it's unlikely we'll find an official, definitive answer, y'never know ...

"it's the Cosby decade"

First, I point again to my own words; you have an excellent point to which I must submit the inadequacy of my expression:

Just as he knows he is truly white, and has an out from his suffering, so, too does Jesus know he is divine, and this is his out from suffering. He knows what nobody else will knows

• I had, actually, intended that the knowledge that the current plight is not permanent provides that security. My bad. However ....

• Howell's character knows the ruse will end at some point: when he is found out or when he chooses to cease being black. I find this analogous.

• Jesus knows, too, that the ruse will end at some point. Imagine if Howell's character had made it to graduation ... at that point, too, would his ruse end.

It's a loose analogy, though, I admit.

I can't say I've read Descartes in any depth but I am familiar with the his demon dilema. Right now I'm at the point where I'd say I'm probably not the dreamer if in fact its all a dream. I reasons for this are:
A. I seem to have no control over what I experience as reality so something other than what I experience as "I" must be creating this reality. (note I distinguish my subconscience as seperate from "I" because by it's very definition I it is somewhere other than the "I" which I experience.)
B. The reality which I experience reflects a complexity and consistency that is far greater than "I" could ever create. (my ADD helps to resolve this as my thoughts tend to be rather tangental and flighty)

In general, sir, I agree wholeheartedly. Nonetheless, that I am not dreaming, or if I am dreaming that I am the dreamer, is something I take on faith. I shan't descend into the metaphysics of existence, as they are an irreconcilable mess, a fragmented and useless digression, and largely beyond the point.

As a side note, let me mention Parabola, a metaphysics journal to say the least. Its current issue v.27, .1 is entitled The Ego & the "I", and is presently featured (for visual reference) at their website. It's out there, but a little tough to find. (Steve's Fremont News and Bulldog News are the only places I've found it in Seattle; even alternative--new age & esoterica--bookstores seem to miss this one.) Unfortunately, the don't have much online as far as articles ... just a few sample paragraphs. If, however, it is of any interest to you, the magazine should be on the shelves through 4/30.

The irony I was refering to was that in my experience, Skeptics tend to be atheistic while the religiously inclined tend to be just the opposite.

It is ironic in its own way. To the other, I affirm that a degree of skepticism within your faith is healthy.

Also your note about faith and affirmation temps me give me one the reasons I maintain my faith so vigorously but since it is a very subjective affirmation I can't reasonably expect you to believe it, so I'll omit it. (however if I've managed to pique your curiosity I'm willing to share it on the grounds that you understand I'm not submitting it as a genuine proof)

Well understood, and up to you. I do think that such perspective can help us (the detractors) understand how you (the faithful) view the dogma and proofs in question. I have no objection.

True, but the difference in state does not neccessarily lead to the conclusion that the suffering is somehow dimminished, only that the suffering must be considered in reference to the being experiencing the suffering.

Fair enough. However, I think the divine advantage over humanity is very nearly the center of this debate.

However, in no case what-so-ever does the church ever take the opportunity to make up new beliefs.

This is an excellent point. The first thing to mind is:

• Thus, the church has always operated on the presupposition of the truth of the Bible and redemption. The faith has never undergone a thorough examination from within that sets aside those presuppositions. It becomes a ratnest conundrum. For instance, free will and redemption; we've hammered that poor idea to death at Sciforums in the past; the essential summary would point out God's Perfect Knowledge and Immutable Will, thus his knowledge that Man would fall at Eden, thus requiring salvation. That God knew and chose to execute the design anyway is part of the reason I discount the sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion. Did God want man to fall and require salvation, and therefore obdedience? Was God incapable of executing a design by which Man didn't fall? Add to that idea my assertion that God lied in Genesis (Adam and Eve did not die that day) in order to effect a standard of obedience ... Is God incapable (not omnipotent) or unwilling (not loving)?

Above all else I feel that I've demonstrated that I don't know everything, even regarding my own religion.

And if you knew, you'd be God ...

I feel I've demonstrated that the crucifixion does satisfy all the requirements for it to be a scarifice.
The issue of magnitude has obviously not been sufficiently addressed. (at least by me)
I feel I've demonstrated that Jesus' incarnation did involve a loss of immense value to both God and himself, thus satisfying even Cris' requirements for a sacrifice.
Still this doesn't resolve the issue of meaning in the crucifixion only meaning in the incarnation.

• It is accepted that you have demonstrated that the crucifixion satisfies definitions of sacrifice.
• It is accepted that the magnitude of sacrifice has yet to be resolved/addressed.
• It is presently rejected that Jesus' incarnation involved a loss of immense value to both God and Jesus.
• Thus. in the exclusive context of our debate, I accept that the meaning of the crucifixion is not resolved. Specifically, I think it largely is resolved (e.g. to my own considerations), but I'm well aware that I can, technically, be absolutely wrong. Your endeavor to grasp these concepts from within the faith sphere are both admirable and exceptionally helpful to helping infidels understand the Christian experience.

Learning something ... hmm ... analogously speaking, would it be fair to compare the assumption of not having anything left to learn to the assumption of not having any sins?

Life is a learning process, Matt ... and you're teaching me a great deal whether you believe that or not. Don't ever stop learning, don't ever stop teaching. The first page of the aforementioned Parabola magazine has an interesting picture of some metalworking tools and two hands that appear to be for a statue; the caption simply reads,

This Self gives itself to that self, and that self to this Self: they become one another.

We're all on this boat together, Matt. Before you can teach someone to bail water from the bilge, you have to learn why one needs to bail bilgewater. Whether in the body of the individual, the body of Christ, or the body of all humanity, I think the above aphorism speaks much to the need of learning and teaching.

thanx much,
Tiassa