DERAIL: So the Crucifixion - What's up with that?

[blastula]

They could have had visions/delusions.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Guys: Keep in mind that my post was intended solely to explain the mainstream Christian view to abaddon about what grace was lost according to standard mainstream thinking. I did clarify that post since I messed it up and inadvertently misled bigfield to an erroneous understanding of what was intended.

What you read in my post is not intended to tell you what I believe. I personally don't think we have any way of knowing exactly what life was like in the beginning. But to answer bigfield's response to my clarification I will tell you that the basis for the mainstream belief that all creatures were vegetarian is Genesis 1:29-30.

Also keep in mind that I have said previously in a discussion with funinspace (on the thread that this derail came from) that I do not believe the Bible is to be considered absolutely historically and/or scientifically accurate since the Jews were well known for expanding actual events to mythological levels as a tool to keep people interested in their teaching of the principles of their faith. Plus there is the fact that the Bible was written by men with less than perfect knowledge of the world around them and they are simply writing down their best understanding of what they have been told or have experienced themselves. I think these stories were intended to be entertaining enough to be read or listened to for the purpose of teaching about the core underlying principles; in this case, how man came to live in a much less than perfect world and why there was a need for a Messiah.

Ruth

 

[Angry Floof]

Guys: Keep in mind that my post was intended solely to explain the mainstream Christian view to abaddon about what grace was lost according to standard mainstream thinking.

That's fine. It's why the topic was split out. Your thread is still on the topic of introducing yourself to the community. This derail is on a topic that is guaranteed to take on a life of its own in this community, and it's the general topic now being examined, not you. You don't even have to respond to this thread if you don't want to. I hope you do. I'm just saying no one expects you to feel obligated to be involved in the derail thread just because it came from a thread you made, in case you were feeling like we think you personally answer for all the beliefs and tenets of Christianity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder how God learned that he is omniscient? Was there an online quiz that he nailed a perfect score? Did someone give him a really hard Standardized Test and he breezed through it?

It's a standard trope that the more someone learns, the more she realizes that she doesn't know. Find the answer to one question, and at the same time discover two more questions that need answering.

So if God knows more than any of us, then wouldn't that mean he also knows about far more things that he doesn't know?

But once God is convinced that he's got nothing left to learn, that he knows everything there is to know, how does he convince someone else of that? Just by saying so? How would a freethinker and a skeptic verify that claim?

Perhaps God has never tested His own omniscience.
Why would He need to?

So now you're arguing against yourself? Cool. Welcome to atheism. Does it feel any different?

 

[Lion IRC]

I just asked a question.
That's not atheism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I just asked a question.
That's not atheism.

There are plenty of theists who will equate any question, any doubt with atheism...

Just like many theists equate atheists' interest in religion as a sign they're truly believers. I think that might have been part of the good doctor's point... Maybe.

 

[Lion IRC]

The ultimate Roman colonialist punishment was to torture people to death in public. There seems to be no doubt that the early Christians believed that, incredibly, their man just got up and walked away, so they could tell Caesar to go fuck himself, though using different words. The question is why they believed that, to which I can only suppose the Muslims are right and he wasn't dead. A huge 'religious' superstructure doesn't help in any way - you have either to believe the 'religious guff, imagine a huge, complicated plot, organised, presumably, by Martians, deny history or come to such conclusions as mine. Up to you.

Ultimate punishment indeed!

Do you think Jesus of Nazareth was publically tortured and executed by the Romans?
I do. And any (extraordinary) claim that, by their incompetence, the Romans would have accidentally allowed Him to survive their quite deliberate public display of brute force seems
very hard to believe.

 

[bigfield]

What you read in my post is not intended to tell you what I believe. I personally don't think we have any way of knowing exactly what life was like in the beginning. But to answer bigfield's response to my clarification I will tell you that the basis for the mainstream belief that all creatures were vegetarian is Genesis 1:29-30.

Interesting. Thanks for the reference.

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

This is one of those passages, like the story of the global flood, that is clearly at odds with modern knowledge about nature. It is impossible for most species to like on a diet of green plants. The passage also omits marine life.

In order to base one's beliefs on passages like this (I'm aware you don't personally) one must either be terribly ignorant of nature or one must take an attitude that anything goes because Jehovah is a mysterious magical being. That's how I used to think of Father Christmas when I was a small child but it's not an appropriate attitude for an adult.

While we can't say exactly what life was like 'in the beginning', we do know a great deal about the history of life and you personally should be able to rule some things out. You can certainly rule out the mainstream belief that animals were vegetarian and didn't die. You can also rule out the story told in Genesis, that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib.

(I'm assuming you've got at least a high school education in biology, including the basics of evolution, cellular biology etc.)

Also keep in mind that I have said previously in a discussion with funinspace (on the thread that this derail came from) that I do not believe the Bible is to be considered absolutely historically and/or scientifically accurate since the Jews were well known for expanding actual events to mythological levels as a tool to keep people interested in their teaching of the principles of their faith. Plus there is the fact that the Bible was written by men with less than perfect knowledge of the world around them and they are simply writing down their best understanding of what they have been told or have experienced themselves. I think these stories were intended to be entertaining enough to be read or listened to for the purpose of teaching about the core underlying principles; in this case, how man came to live in a much less than perfect world and why there was a need for a Messiah.

Can you speculate on why your fellow churchgoers, the holders of mainstream beliefs, cannot see this for themselves? It's baffling to me, as an outside observer, that people can't figure this out.

 

[James Brown]

The ultimate Roman colonialist punishment was to torture people to death in public. There seems to be no doubt that the early Christians believed that, incredibly, their man just got up and walked away, so they could tell Caesar to go fuck himself, though using different words. The question is why they believed that, to which I can only suppose the Muslims are right and he wasn't dead. A huge 'religious' superstructure doesn't help in any way - you have either to believe the 'religious guff, imagine a huge, complicated plot, organised, presumably, by Martians, deny history or come to such conclusions as mine. Up to you.

Ultimate punishment indeed!

Do you think Jesus of Nazareth was publically tortured and executed by the Romans?
I do. And any (extraordinary) claim that, by their incompetence, the Romans would have accidentally allowed Him to survive their quite deliberate public display of brute force seems
very hard to believe.

It's not hard for me to wonder about it.

If we take the gospels at face value, we have to begin with the assumption that the Roman occupiers were deeply concerned about offending the Jews with regard to their religious rituals. If we trust the word of Josephus, Pilate was not one for niceties and winning hearts and minds, but maybe in this one area, Pilate wants everyone to be friends.

Thus, the Romans find themselves in a situation where they've decided that someone must be killed, but he can't be in the process of dying during the next day's holiday. Well, if you want someone dead by sundown, the standard method to do that was to put them against a wall and throw spears at their chest. The job's done in minutes.

Instead, the Romans crucify Jesus, a method of execution that was by design intended to last for days. It makes a better message to the people if they can see the poor guy suffer for as long as possible. They even provided liquid to Jesus to prolong his agony, even if it was just vinegar.

Then, for obscure reasons, someone decides that Jesus needs to be dead and fast! Well, you shouldn't have put him on a cross, but never mind.

So the Roman executioners go to break Jesus' legs so that he'll be dead. But they don't bother breaking his legs, because he's already dead. So they stab him, to make sure he's dead. What happened to breaking his legs?

When they report back that Jesus is dead, Pilate is amazed. "What! So soon?" Which is a funny thing to say when you wanted someone dead soon. Wouldn't he have been relieved that Jesus was dead, rather than surprised?

Then, rather than letting Jesus' corpse hang on the cross until its rotted completely away--providing even more visual reminders of the penalties of bucking the powers-that-be--some random guy asks for his body, and the Romans shrug and say sure. Joseph takes the body, buries it (or so we're told) and then exits stage left never to be seen again. Very interesting. Of course, we're told that Joseph was a believer, so it's not as if, while taking Jesus' body down, he would suddenly shout, "Hey, he's still breathing!"

No, I think there's a case for reasonable doubt, assuming that the religious tracts that documented all this are to be believed. But I've never met a Christian who felt the same way.

 

[Lion IRC]

Jesus, who has been awake all night in Gethsemene, was beaten to a pulp before His Crucifixion.
He was already half dead before they marched Him up to Golgotha.
And recall that He wasn't even able to carry His Cross by Himself.
So here is Someone who, we shouldn't be surprised to learn, died quite more quickly than would otherwise be expected.
And by allowing Jesus' (Jewish) followers to take the body and bury it before sunset, Pilate was getting something for nothing.
Jesus is already dead so it costs Pilate nothing to grant that request and the Sanhedrin know Jesus is dead too so they also have what they wanted.

ETA - and the reason they were going to break His legs was to hasten His death not to actually kill Him. Spearing Him in the heart was the thing done to ensure that He was in fact dead - something the Romans would not leave to chance.

 

[bilby]

Jesus, who has been awake all night in Gethsemene, was beaten to a pulp before His Crucifixion.
He was already half dead before they marched Him up to Golgotha.
And recall that He wasn't even able to carry His Cross by Himself.
So here is Someone who, we shouldn't be surprised to learn, died quite more quickly than would otherwise be expected.
And by allowing Jesus' (Jewish) followers to take the body and bury it before sunset, Pilate was getting something for nothing.
Jesus is already dead so it costs Pilate nothing to grant that request and the Sanhedrin know Jesus is dead too so they also have what they wanted.

ETA - and the reason they were going to break His legs was to hasten His death not to actually kill Him. Spearing Him in the heart was the thing done to ensure that He was in fact dead - something the Romans would not leave to chance.

Human beings are often surprisingly hard to kill.

Your certainty is misplaced, and only serves to add 'medicine' and 'human biology' to the LONG list of areas in which you are evidently ignorant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Jesus, who has been awake all night in Gethsemene, was beaten to a pulp before His Crucifixion.
He was already half dead before they marched Him up to Golgotha.
And recall that He wasn't even able to carry His Cross by Himself.
So here is Someone who, we shouldn't be surprised to learn, died quite more quickly than would otherwise be expected.
And by allowing Jesus' (Jewish) followers to take the body and bury it before sunset, Pilate was getting something for nothing.
Jesus is already dead so it costs Pilate nothing to grant that request and the Sanhedrin know Jesus is dead too so they also have what they wanted.

ETA - and the reason they were going to break His legs was to hasten His death not to actually kill Him. Spearing Him in the heart was the thing done to ensure that He was in fact dead - something the Romans would not leave to chance.

But then came back to life and flew away into the sky.

Superman Returns had a similar plot but with much less blood and violence. Lex Luthor stabbed Superman with a dagger grown from kryptonite crystals after he was beaten. Superman would have died but he was saved by Lois Lane and her S.O.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I'm just saying no one expects you to feel obligated to be involved in the derail thread just because it came from a thread you made, in case you were feeling like we think you personally answer for all the beliefs and tenets of Christianity.

Whew! I was rapidly approaching the point of throwing up this sign

Not really. It was just my eternal curiosity that led me here, when I found that there had been a thread split. And the rest of the story can be found in my first post in this thread.

And since I know how frustrating it can be when a question or comment directed at a specific poster is ignored, I guess I am here for the duration so to speak. But I should tell you one thing that I won't do, and that is respond to a post that contains an insult directed at me specifically. I don't usually bother reporting these things unless they are completely beyond reason because it says more about the poster than anyone else and I do have a fairly thick skin.

Ruth

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes it's rather disingenuous to insult someone every which way and accuse them of being ignorant/stupid/deluded
and THEN expect them to engage in dialogue.

 

[Lion IRC]

Folks ask you to explain the theology of atonement and Jesus' sacrifice
...and THEN they go into some inane spoof routine about Superman and Lex Luther.

Why feign sincerity then (bait and switch) say Jesus never died for anyone because Jesus is a myth.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Interesting. Thanks for the reference.

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

This is one of those passages, like the story of the global flood, that is clearly at odds with modern knowledge about nature. It is impossible for most species to like on a diet of green plants. The passage also omits marine life.

In order to base one's beliefs on passages like this (I'm aware you don't personally) one must either be terribly ignorant of nature or one must take an attitude that anything goes because Jehovah is a mysterious magical being. That's how I used to think of Father Christmas when I was a small child but it's not an appropriate attitude for an adult.

While we can't say exactly what life was like 'in the beginning', we do know a great deal about the history of life and you personally should be able to rule some things out. You can certainly rule out the mainstream belief that animals were vegetarian and didn't die. You can also rule out the story told in Genesis, that Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from a rib.

(I'm assuming you've got at least a high school education in biology, including the basics of evolution, cellular biology etc.)

Also keep in mind that I have said previously in a discussion with funinspace (on the thread that this derail came from) that I do not believe the Bible is to be considered absolutely historically and/or scientifically accurate since the Jews were well known for expanding actual events to mythological levels as a tool to keep people interested in their teaching of the principles of their faith. Plus there is the fact that the Bible was written by men with less than perfect knowledge of the world around them and they are simply writing down their best understanding of what they have been told or have experienced themselves. I think these stories were intended to be entertaining enough to be read or listened to for the purpose of teaching about the core underlying principles; in this case, how man came to live in a much less than perfect world and why there was a need for a Messiah.

Can you speculate on why your fellow churchgoers, the holders of mainstream beliefs, cannot see this for themselves? It's baffling to me, as an outside observer, that people can't figure this out.

Yes, I had a pretty decent education plus life long study on my own covering just about any subject you want to name just because I wanted to learn more. I am not a genius but you won't find me with the slow learners either....

As for my fellow mainstream believers, I have seen a few different types that could explain their deliberate blindness on certain subjects.

First, there are the ones I call "The True Believers". The capitalization is intentional on my part to display how they consider themselves. They have lived their entire life in their church which is typically one that considers the Bible inerrant and infallible on everything, including history and science. They will not listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with their worldview and deny that there are any contradictions in scripture. And they think their church's interpretation is the only infallible one. I try to avoid these people like the plague; they make me uneasy as they are just as likely to turn on me as they are to welcome me.

Second, there are the poor benighted souls who got caught in a church resembling the description I give above. They are terrified that if they don't accept everything they are taught as truth, they will go to hell when they die. I have nothing but pity for them since they don't have enough backbone to stand up for themselves. They may actually be very intelligent people but they have no internal fortitude.

And third, there are the lazy believers. You know the ones - they just go along with whatever is being taught in their church without ever trying to learn anything more on their own. In my opinion these people do not even deserve to be called Christian as they don't have a clue what real faith means - and they have no intention of spending any time or effort trying to find out.

Ruth

 

[bigfield]

As for my fellow mainstream believers, I have seen a few different types that could explain their deliberate blindness on certain subjects.

First, there are the ones I call "The True Believers". The capitalization is intentional on my part to display how they consider themselves. They have lived their entire life in their church which is typically one that considers the Bible inerrant and infallible on everything, including history and science. They will not listen to anyone or anything that disagrees with their worldview and deny that there are any contradictions in scripture. And they think their church's interpretation is the only infallible one. I try to avoid these people like the plague; they make me uneasy as they are just as likely to turn on me as they are to welcome me.

Second, there are the poor benighted souls who got caught in a church resembling the description I give above. They are terrified that if they don't accept everything they are taught as truth, they will go to hell when they die. I have nothing but pity for them since they don't have enough backbone to stand up for themselves. They may actually be very intelligent people but they have no internal fortitude.

And third, there are the lazy believers. You know the ones - they just go along with whatever is being taught in their church without ever trying to learn anything more on their own. In my opinion these people do not even deserve to be called Christian as they don't have a clue what real faith means - and they have no intention of spending any time or effort trying to find out.

Ruth

Thanks--that's a useful insight.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Folks ask you to explain the theology of atonement and Jesus' sacrifice
...and THEN they go into some inane spoof routine about Superman and Lex Luther.

Why feign sincerity then (bait and switch) say Jesus never died for anyone because Jesus is a myth.

Aw, poor christain.

Jesus' suffering included torture and he still forgave his tormentors (according to the stories).
You get mocked, without any slight risk of physical discomfort and whine like a little bitch about how people don't treat your myth as a credible story just on the face of it.


That's just so sad for you...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

One thing I am curious about, however, is when you talked in your OP about "Christ died on the cross to pay for those sins". I've never really gotten the point of that. Jesus was God, so why go through the dog-and-pony show of putting on a human meatsuit and pretending to die in order to forgive us for our sins instead of just forgiving us for our sins without all the drama? It seems like an inefficient waste of his time and I don't get why we should be impressed by it.

I know I am going to regret doing this - but there are really simple answers that no one here has even touched that are widely accepted among mainstream Christian denominations and provides as much of an explanation for the incarnation and crucifixion as you are going to find.

1. The incarnation was necessary to allow Jesus to live a perfect sinless life as an example to mankind, an atonement for Adam's original fall from grace, and to provide the perfect sacrifice for all of mankind as a one time permanent replacement for the currently used (at that time) annual Passover lamb sacrifices. All three of these things are not accepted by all denominations but at least two of the three are widely believed. Some Christians do not accept the atonement for Adam as part of the reason.

2. The crucifixion was necessary to fulfill Jewish prophecy in the Tanakh (Psalm 22, to be precise) on the manner of death the Messiah would have. More detail can also be found in Isaiah 52 & 53 on his life and death.

And that is really all I have to say on this subject. Just couldn't stand reading all of these pages and not seeing the actual accepted reasoning for the incarnation and crucifixion.

Ruth

Yes, I get that part - it is as simple as you make it out to be. My question has to do with the why behind it. God made a decision to forgive mankind for the whole apple mishap (which was totally his own damn fault, but that's a separate thread). Before granting this forgiveness, however, he put on a human body, lived a perfect life and then let some people sacrifice him in order to check off some bullet points from a prophecy. Seeing as he is the one who did all that, though, why go through that bother? Why not just skip to the end part where he forgives everybody?

It's not like there was somebody else involved who did something which changed God's mind about withholding forgiveness. It's not like God is an underpowered wizard who needs to invoke an overly complex ritual of having a perfect person sacrificed in order to generate sufficient magical energy to cast the atonement spell - the man is omnipotent, so he can just do things without the need for any preamble. There's just a pointlessness to the whole event which I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around. Also, if he wants people to stop sending him lamb entrails, he can just tell them that he already has more lamb entrails than he'll ever really use, so please stop giving them to him. He sent an angel to the shepherds anyways, so a message about the change in lamb usage would have hit one of the main target audiences and the last sacrifice could have been whichever random lamb had been sacrificed the night before as opposed to it being a person.

Now, you did make a good point about his incarnating himself to live this perfect life as an example to mankind and that's fine. It's a valid reason to pack on a meatsuit and hang out on Earth for a bit. Why there would be some kind of relationship between that and deciding to forgive people and why a need for suffering is somehow in there too is unclear to me.

 

[Lion IRC]

I know I am going to regret doing this - but there are really simple answers that no one here has even touched that are widely accepted among mainstream Christian denominations and provides as much of an explanation for the incarnation and crucifixion as you are going to find.

There might be another reason nobody has mentioned your ideas. (They might not be mainstream.)
And I'm going to have to disagree on a couple of points below

1. The incarnation was necessary to allow Jesus to live a perfect sinless life as an example to mankind...

No. It was not necessary.
That's the whole point of Grace.
God doesn't HAVE to do that. Why does God HAVE do something for our benefit?

2. The crucifixion was necessary to fulfill Jewish prophecy in the Tanakh (Psalm 22, to be precise) on the manner of death the Messiah would have. More detail can also be found in Isaiah 52 & 53 on his life and death.

No. It defeats the purpose of a 'prophecy' if you have to contrive to fulfill it.
A prophecy is a statement of what will inevitibly happen.
When Jesus says go to this place and there you will find a colt/foal on which nobody has ridden, He isnt staging an event.
He is just doing what was always going to take place.
The fact that Isaiah prophesied it doesn't compel Jesus.

And that is really all I have to say on this subject. Just couldn't stand reading all of these pages and not seeing the actual accepted reasoning for the incarnation and crucifixion.

Why didn't you mention Gods voluntary desire to do something loving which was entirely for our benefit?