• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Lets contemplate the crucifiction

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I'm actually dead serious, and your just upset because of the absurdity of the story, and of course, the resurrection. If Jesus died, there’s no miraculous resurrection, and if there’s a resurrection, there’s no sacrifice through death. Miracle or sacrifice—you can’t have it both ways. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins.
Upset, I am not upset ! I find you very amusing. Of course he died, of course he was ressurected, who are you to put restrictions on what could or couldn't happen. He said " no greater love has a man than that he would give up his life for his friends " The Apostles were under no threat, so what did he mean ? Uh, the sacrifice through death for humanity. He also said " I lay down my life willingly, and I will take it up again" There you go
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I never could make much sense out of it either. And why make an instrument of execution the primary symbol of worship? The Romans were pretty bizarre anyway, but crucifixion as a form of capital punishment takes the cake. If Jesus had shown up at another time and place, we might see a gallows or an electric chair on the altar of every church.
I never could make much sense out of it either. And why make an instrument of execution the primary symbol of worship? The Romans were pretty bizarre anyway, but crucifixion as a form of capital punishment takes the cake. If Jesus had shown up at another time and place, we might see a gallows or an electric chair on the altar of every church.
The cross is not a " symbol of worship", it is the symbol of the second greatest event in history, the crucifixion. The first of course is the resurrection.
 

sovietchild

Well-Known Member
I never could make much sense out of it either. And why make an instrument of execution the primary symbol of worship? The Romans were pretty bizarre anyway, but crucifixion as a form of capital punishment takes the cake. If Jesus had shown up at another time and place, we might see a gallows or an electric chair on the altar of every church.

I think you gave me a good question.

What is wrong with those people who wear an instrument of execution around their necks?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
All religious symbolism sounds strange to an outsider. Being raised Christian, how I understood from an outsider's viewpoint, what the Christian might think about it... The crucifixion story symbolizes an omnipotent creator god living outside of his own creation experiencing it as partly a mortal existence including death in one of the parts of the trinity. His own death is a pardon of sorts and the resurrection is seen as a symbol of hope to be resurrected again when God decides to incarnate again or in some interpretations hope of a somewhat direct afterlife or fear of a punishment after death.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The cross is not a " symbol of worship", it is the symbol of the second greatest event in history, the crucifixion. The first of course is the resurrection.

Actually, this is not backed up by the scriptures. Christ's followers were commanded to keep the anniversary of his death, which this year falls on the 11th of April. (a Tuesday) This corresponds with the date of the Jewish calendar month of Nisan, on the 14th day. This is also the same date as the Jewish Passover because it was held on the same night. Christ is the Passover Lamb....his blood saves those who put faith in its value.

There is no command to commemorate Christ's resurrection, even though it was a prophesied event. It was the blood of Jesus shed on Nisan 14 that paid for the sins of mankind. (1 John 1:7; Hebrews 9:13-14)

Revelation 1:5:
"from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood."


There is also no Biblical record of Jesus being put to death on a cross. The Romans had various configurations of their instruments of torture. But the one used for Jesus is described as a "stauros" which primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.—London, 1896

The cross as a religious symbol predates Christianity by centuries....and it has very unsavory roots. :(
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Have you ever thought about how bizarre the crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:


  • Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...
    Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human for all eternity. I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem.

    So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me as a sacrifice to me. That, finally, will make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me.
How much sense does this make?
I'm not aware of any serious religious aspirant who anthropomorphizes God the way you imagine, the reality represented by the term God is beyond human knowledge and description. Iow, religion is a profound subject, and religious practice is a long and difficult path to realize non-conceptual reality.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think you gave me a good question.

What is wrong with those people who wear an instrument of execution around their necks?

Forgive me for answering the rhetoric of the narrow minded, but if they do it to remember one who sacrificed himself in the path of Allah to remind themselves to sacrifice in the path of Allah then nothing wrong with it I.m.o
 

Cobol

Code Jockey
Have you ever thought about how bizarre the crucifixion story is? Imagine the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven. He looks down onto earth and says to himself:


  • Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...
    Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human for all eternity. I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem.

    So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me as a sacrifice to me. That, finally, will make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me.
How much sense does this make?



"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) He didn’t say that He was simply like the Father. He said that they were “one.” In verse 36, Jesus makes it clear that He had referred to Himself as the “Son of God.” Logic alone would tell us that the “Son” of God would possess the same deity as the Father. Man begets man. God begets God.

"The Jews answered Him (Jesus), 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.' ”

Jesus had obviously claimed to be God. So just what had He said to upset His Jewish audience so much?


"that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

"You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am." (John 13:13) The Greek word for “Lord” is Kurios, meaning “God—supreme in authority.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) The Jews knew exactly what He was claiming. By using the term “I am,” He was making Himself out to be Yahweh (God) of the Old Testament. We know that the Jews understood His claim, since verse 59 tells us that they wanted to stone Him. And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’
Here, God, in giving this name, gives the essential meaning of Yahweh—I am the One who is. By referring to Himself with the same name, Jesus is unmistakably claiming to be God. Anyone who argues that Jesus never made such a claim simply hasn’t bothered to search the Scriptures for themselves.

You can't repudiate any of my original post.

So was Jesus a liar, lunatic or legend?
 

sovietchild

Well-Known Member
Forgive me for answering the rhetoric of the narrow minded, but if they do it to remember one who sacrificed himself in the path of Allah to remind themselves to sacrifice in the path of Allah then nothing wrong with it I.m.o

I think they are promoting evil. 1/4 of population don't even believe it was Jesus who got crucified. Basically, there is a 50% chance they are promoting a lie.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member



"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) He didn’t say that He was simply like the Father. He said that they were “one.” In verse 36, Jesus makes it clear that He had referred to Himself as the “Son of God.” Logic alone would tell us that the “Son” of God would possess the same deity as the Father. Man begets man. God begets God.

"The Jews answered Him (Jesus), 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.' ”

Jesus had obviously claimed to be God. So just what had He said to upset His Jewish audience so much?


"that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

"You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am." (John 13:13) The Greek word for “Lord” is Kurios, meaning “God—supreme in authority.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) The Jews knew exactly what He was claiming. By using the term “I am,” He was making Himself out to be Yahweh (God) of the Old Testament. We know that the Jews understood His claim, since verse 59 tells us that they wanted to stone Him. And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’
Here, God, in giving this name, gives the essential meaning of Yahweh—I am the One who is. By referring to Himself with the same name, Jesus is unmistakably claiming to be God. Anyone who argues that Jesus never made such a claim simply hasn’t bothered to search the Scriptures for themselves.

You can't repudiate any of my original post.

So was Jesus a liar, lunatic or legend?
The whole idea of religious practice is to realize oneness with God, the very term 'Yoga' means union, the term religion...prefix 're' means again, Latin root 'ligio' means to 'tie' to connect....to reunite. God is one, and the multiplicity you perceive is only in your mind, religious practice will ultimately bring about union, oneness with God.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
I see the crucifixion story as that, a story, or a metaphor, its simply crucifying our old self the carnal self, and letting our true inner self resurrect and come to life, its that simple to me, I don't know why many make a song and dance about it all.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Actually, this is not backed up by the scriptures. Christ's followers were commanded to keep the anniversary of his death, which this year falls on the 11th of April. (a Tuesday) This corresponds with the date of the Jewish calendar month of Nisan, on the 14th day. This is also the same date as the Jewish Passover because it was held on the same night. Christ is the Passover Lamb....his blood saves those who put faith in its value.

There is no command to commemorate Christ's resurrection, even though it was a prophesied event. It was the blood of Jesus shed on Nisan 14 that paid for the sins of mankind. (1 John 1:7; Hebrews 9:13-14)

Revelation 1:5:
"from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood."


There is also no Biblical record of Jesus being put to death on a cross. The Romans had various configurations of their instruments of torture. But the one used for Jesus is described as a "stauros" which primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.—London, 1896

The cross as a religious symbol predates Christianity by centuries....and it has very unsavory roots. :(
Ah, a Jehovah's Witness, I have debated with you folks many times, and I like and respect those I have come across. Stauros originally meant a pole, but the usage changed, as words do, to include a cross, tree, whatever was used in crucifixion., this is borne out by contemporary secular Roman writers at the time of Christ. Certainly the term "torture stake" as translated in the JW Bible isn't even close to the original Koine Greek. Biblical Archaeology review reported on a comprehensive study of the physical evidence and contemporary writings, and came to the conclusion that the upright ( stauros) was probably permanently placed, and the victim carried the crosspiece to the place of execution. The Bible also supports a cross, Thomas said that he wouldn't believe until he saw where the NAILS pierced his hands. If it had been done on a pole, it would have taken a single nail to pin both his hands above his head, just as the upright required a single long nail for the feet. Further, the Bible says Pilate placed a plaque above his head. How could he do that if is arms were straight up above his head ? How could a plaque be attached to a pole ? No, it was a cross. As to your hundred plus year old reference, so what ? The world is full of opinions on everything, he had one, it was wrong. Finally, I know you folk almost appear to believe that symbols carry some inherent power within them. i.e, Christmas tree, cross and others. If you think that a symbol meant something to another pagan culture, their evil is manifested in it. Of course, that's nonsense and the cross is Christian because Christ was crucified on one. It is a common symbol, and I couldn't care less what some ancient culture may have used it for. You folk think like John Calvin, if it isn't prescribed in the scripture, don't do it. Most Protestant believers adopt the philosophy of Martin Luther, if it isn't proscribed in scripture, you are free to do it. I can celebrate the crucifixion every day ( and I do). As to your " communion service" held once a year on the Jewish date you indicated, Christ said "as often as you do this", does that sound like an annual thing? Actually there is no Biblical instruction as to how often this should be done. More is better
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member



"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) He didn’t say that He was simply like the Father. He said that they were “one.” In verse 36, Jesus makes it clear that He had referred to Himself as the “Son of God.” Logic alone would tell us that the “Son” of God would possess the same deity as the Father. Man begets man. God begets God.

"The Jews answered Him (Jesus), 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.' ”

Jesus had obviously claimed to be God. So just what had He said to upset His Jewish audience so much?


"that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:38)

"You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am." (John 13:13) The Greek word for “Lord” is Kurios, meaning “God—supreme in authority.

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) The Jews knew exactly what He was claiming. By using the term “I am,” He was making Himself out to be Yahweh (God) of the Old Testament. We know that the Jews understood His claim, since verse 59 tells us that they wanted to stone Him. And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’
Here, God, in giving this name, gives the essential meaning of Yahweh—I am the One who is. By referring to Himself with the same name, Jesus is unmistakably claiming to be God. Anyone who argues that Jesus never made such a claim simply hasn’t bothered to search the Scriptures for themselves.

You can't repudiate any of my original post.

So was Jesus a liar, lunatic or legend?
He was EXACTLY whom he said he was, EXACTLY. He was God, contrary to the beliefs of my Arian friends. I won 't define the term for you, you are confused enough as it is.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Forgive me for answering the rhetoric of the narrow minded, but if they do it to remember one who sacrificed himself in the path of Allah to remind themselves to sacrifice in the path of Allah then nothing wrong with it I.m.o
allah, what allah ? Are you talking about the fictional god that ol' mo made up by taking part of Judaism, part of Christianity, then creating the really viscous bits right out of his overheated brain ?
 

Cobol

Code Jockey
He was EXACTLY whom he said he was, EXACTLY. He was God, contrary to the beliefs of my Arian friends. I won 't define the term for you, you are confused enough as it is.

I just find this nonsense to be amusing is all.

Humor me and define the term.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
allah, what allah ? Are you talking about the fictional god that ol' mo made up by taking part of Judaism, part of Christianity, then creating the really viscous bits right out of his overheated brain ?
Allah is Arabic for God. Arab Christians whose Bibles are the same as yours except translated into Arabic language say Allah everywhere the word God appears. :)
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Allah is Arabic for God. Arab Christians whose Bibles are the same as yours except translated into Arabic language say Allah everywhere the word God appears. :)
Yes, I have heard that, but I haven't verified it. So then there is Allah, and allah. OK
 
Top