Lets contemplate the crucifiction

[Cobol]

Isn't that amusing, I told you I find your nonsense amusing, and here you copy me. Amusing. Look it up, you must have a dictionary

Your saying i copied you? You sound like an adolescent.

I didn't even notice what word you used, for there was so much gibberish.

Why don't you just define the term and quit complaining?

Those who have truth, don't need to be defensive. Your insecurity is effecting you.

 

[Ingledsva]

 

[Deeje]

Ah, a Jehovah's Witness, I have debated with you folks many times, and I like and respect those I have come across.

Thank you for the kind words.

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.

This is off Wikipedia....hanging someone on a stake was one method used by the Romans.

There are two words used in the Bible for the execution stake used to put Jesus to death....."stau·rosʹ" and "xyʹlon".

Acts 5:30 Mounce Interlinear....
The ho God theos of ho our hēmeis fathers patēr raised egeirō Jesus Iēsous, whom hos you hymeis killed diacheirizō by hanging kremannymi him on epi a tree xylon.

1 Peter 2:24
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, [xyʹlon ]that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."

Gal 3:13
"Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.”[xyʹlon]

Deuteronomy 21:22-23:
“If someone has committed a capital crime and is put to death, then hung on a tree, 23 his body is not to remain all night on the tree, but you must bury him the same day, because a person who has been hanged has been cursed by God — so that you will not defile your land, which Adonai your God is giving you to inherit." (Complete Jewish Bible)

The apostles Peter and Paul both use the word xyʹlon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this shows that it was an upright stake without a crossbeam, because that is what xyʹlon in this sense means. (see illustration above) (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1Peter 2:24)

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.

Well, regardless of the shape, it is bizarre to say the least to make an image of the torture instrument used to put someone you love to death, and cherish it or treat it as an idol.

The Law to Israel was NOT to make an image of ANYTHING and use it in worship. (Exodus 20:3) Don't you think that would include the cross, particularly since its origins were tied up with Nimrod who was deified as the false god Tammuz? (Ezekiel 8:14) His symbol was the tau or the initial of his name....the letter "t" with the cross piece lowered.

Do you really think God would approve of this association in connection with his son's sacrifice? (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

 

[Pudding]

(Just my guess)

It could be argue that there are multiple personality for the Trinity God.

God in the Old Testament - He is omnipotent or very powerful.
Jesus - He is omnibenevolent or benevolent.
Holy Spirit - It is omnipresent and/or omniscient?

Together they form the Trinity God.

Because of multiple personality of Trinity God, and also because each personality have their opinion of what they wants to do, whether they can agree with each other's opinion, it is the reason for the contradiction found in the Bible.

 

[ZooGirl02]

God is not the author of sin. God is the author of good. However, all things have an opposite and the opposite of good is evil. Sin is evil. Evil is simply the lack of good. God didn't create evil and He didn't create sin either. However, He did create free will and Adam and Eve chose to commit the first sin of their own free will. We call that sin "original sin".

 

[SethZaddik]

In the first place, where are the verses or passages to back up what is said ^ above ^.

Satan and the rest of the angels were created sinless.
Adam and Eve were created sinless.
To me, they were drawn out by their own wrong desires - James 1:13-15

God's main attributes or qualities are: love, justice, mercy, and wisdom.
So, we can all display those qualities to varying degrees.

Unlike us, Satan, Adam and Eve were perfect in the sense they could only sin on purpose, Not by mistake.
God forces No one to obey Him. So, by gifting us to be free-will persons, then we (Not God) chooses to obey or Not obey. Disobedience leads to death as Adam returned to dust - Genesis 3:19

Since we can Not resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can do that for us.
According to Scripture, Jesus can and will - Revelation 1:18
Jesus can because humanly perfect Jesus remained faithful to his God until his death.
God did Not send Himself to Earth. God sent the already existing heavenly Jesus to Earth.
Jesus is the beginning of the heavenly creation by God according to Revelation 3:14 B
God sent His heavenly Son (Not Himself) to Earth to undo the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.

Noah and family survived the Flood by obeying God.
The Earth was filled with violence according to Genesis 6:11
So, if God had Not taken the Flood action the wicked would have killed off all the righteous ones, and we simply would Not be here today.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


These are just your words and some references, not accurate correction of anything

 

[SethZaddik]

In the first place, where are the verses or passages to back up what is said ^ above ^.

Satan and the rest of the angels were created sinless.
Adam and Eve were created sinless.
To me, they were drawn out by their own wrong desires - James 1:13-15

God's main attributes or qualities are: love, justice, mercy, and wisdom.
So, we can all display those qualities to varying degrees.

Unlike us, Satan, Adam and Eve were perfect in the sense they could only sin on purpose, Not by mistake.
God forces No one to obey Him. So, by gifting us to be free-will persons, then we (Not God) chooses to obey or Not obey. Disobedience leads to death as Adam returned to dust - Genesis 3:19

Since we can Not resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can do that for us.
According to Scripture, Jesus can and will - Revelation 1:18
Jesus can because humanly perfect Jesus remained faithful to his God until his death.
God did Not send Himself to Earth. God sent the already existing heavenly Jesus to Earth.
Jesus is the beginning of the heavenly creation by God according to Revelation 3:14 B
God sent His heavenly Son (Not Himself) to Earth to undo the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.

Noah and family survived the Flood by obeying God.
The Earth was filled with violence according to Genesis 6:11
So, if God had Not taken the Flood action the wicked would have killed off all the righteous ones, and we simply would Not be here today.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


These are just your words and some references, not accurate correction of anything

 

[Kenny]

You can't repudiate any of my original post.

So was Jesus a liar, lunatic or legend?

He was Immanuel, God with us. And I already repudiated your original post.

 

[shmogie]

Thank you for the kind words.




This is off Wikipedia....hanging someone on a stake was one method used by the Romans.

There are two words used in the Bible for the execution stake used to put Jesus to death....."stau·rosʹ" and "xyʹlon".

Acts 5:30 Mounce Interlinear....
The ho God theos of ho our hēmeis fathers patēr raised egeirō Jesus Iēsous, whom hos you hymeis killed diacheirizō by hanging kremannymi him on epi a tree xylon.

1 Peter 2:24
"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, [xyʹlon ]that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."

Gal 3:13
"Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.”[xyʹlon]

Deuteronomy 21:22-23:
“If someone has committed a capital crime and is put to death, then hung on a tree, 23 his body is not to remain all night on the tree, but you must bury him the same day, because a person who has been hanged has been cursed by God — so that you will not defile your land, which Adonai your God is giving you to inherit." (Complete Jewish Bible)

The apostles Peter and Paul both use the word xyʹlon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this shows that it was an upright stake without a crossbeam, because that is what xyʹlon in this sense means. (see illustration above) (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1Peter 2:24)



Well, regardless of the shape, it is bizarre to say the least to make an image of the torture instrument used to put someone you love to death, and cherish it or treat it as an idol.

The Law to Israel was NOT to make an image of ANYTHING and use it in worship. (Exodus 20:3) Don't you think that would include the cross, particularly since its origins were tied up with Nimrod who was deified as the false god Tammuz? (Ezekiel 8:14) His symbol was the tau or the initial of his name....the letter "t" with the cross piece lowered.

Do you really think God would approve of this association in connection with his son's sacrifice? (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

Yes, the Romans were flexible in their killing. They used fences and walls if required. I don't "worship" the cross, it is simply a symbol, a logo if you will. The reason it is perfectly appropriate is that it symbolizes ultimate evil being defeated by ultimate good, and you know that is what happened at the crucifixion. What may have happened in some culture before Christianity is totally irrelevant, the cross means what it means to Christians, and represents Christianity throughout the world. Go to the deepest Hindu part of India, and ask the people what the cross means or represents. They will immediately tell you, Christianity. Sometimes denominations major in minors, with respect this is one of those cases.

 

[shmogie]

Your saying i copied you? You sound like an adolescent.

I didn't even notice what word you used, for there was so much gibberish.

Why don't you just define the term and quit complaining?

Those who have truth, don't need to be defensive. Your insecurity is effecting you.

Your saying i copied you? You sound like an adolescent.

I didn't even notice what word you used, for there was so much gibberish.

Why don't you just define the term and quit complaining?

Those who have truth, don't need to be defensive. Your insecurity is effecting you.

I'm not complaining, nor am I insecure. I don't complain about comedy.

 

[shmogie]

There is only one supreme God, but only English speaking people use the word God, other languages call IT something else. In Arabic it is Allah, that's all....

The allah of islam is not God................................

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My main beef with the story is that, from an aesthetic standpoint, an all powerful being can make no meaningful "sacrifice."

Take into account the emotions you would feel if someone offered their life to save yours. The reason it is incredibly meaningful when a human being offers their life is because none of us are 100% sure what exactly happens upon death. "Life" becomes the only thing we own that we are really sure of in this context. There is meaning there because "life" is supremely important when everything else is an unknown. A human stands to lose... and lose BIG.

Now juxtapose that with God, in human form, offering His life to save yours. Does He truly stand to lose ANYTHING if His human form dies? No. Are their any unknowns to God surrounding what may happen when He loses "life?" No. Could He, quite easily, bring His human form back to life in any manner He so chose? Yes. And so I ask you... where is the meaning in the sacrifice? Nothing He has supposedly "sacrificed" has much of any meaning to Him. He doesn't know "death" for His kind. "Pain" is incredibly temporary no matter how long it lasts for Him. I would argue that He hasn't truly "sacrificed" anything at all. He still has his all-powerful faculty in every manifestation of it He had before. He remains unchanged. What are the costs of the sacrifice?

How can a "sacrifice" be termed as such with no associated cost to the one making the sacrifice?

 

[shmogie]

My main beef with the story is that, from an aesthetic standpoint, an all powerful being can make no meaningful "sacrifice."

Take into account the emotions you would feel if someone offered their life to save yours. The reason it is incredibly meaningful when a human being offers their life is because none of us are 100% sure what exactly happens upon death. "Life" becomes the only thing we own that we are really sure of in this context. There is meaning there because "life" is supremely important when everything else is an unknown. A human stands to lose... and lose BIG.

Now juxtapose that with God, in human form, offering His life to save yours. Does He truly stand to lose ANYTHING if His human form dies? No. Are their any unknowns to God surrounding what may happen when He loses "life?" No. Could He, quite easily, bring His human form back to life in any manner He so chose? Yes. And so I ask you... where is the meaning in the sacrifice? Nothing He has supposedly "sacrificed" has much of any meaning to Him. He doesn't know "death" for His kind. "Pain" is incredibly temporary no matter how long it lasts for Him. I would argue that He hasn't truly "sacrificed" anything at all. He still has his all-powerful faculty in every manifestation of it He had before. He remains unchanged. What are the costs of the sacrifice?

How can a "sacrifice" be termed as such with no associated cost to the one making the sacrifice?

Christ in human form could die, he went into death with only his faith that he would live again, nothing more. He stood to lose everything. Death is death, the soul is not immortal. Humans with puny logic attempt to define the nature of God. A totally impossible task. Obviously though God, death was a real possibility for him.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

How much sense does it make? It makes no sense for an antitheist who does not believe. For believers, it shows God's love for His creation in that He is willing to die for them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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?

However you state it, or phrase it, it doesn't make any logical sense. Then again, that's not it's appeal or purpose. It's supposed to appeal to people emotionally, which it does. Now, if you scratch beneath the surface, it's power to affect you emotionally seems like it would be hindered by the fact that it doesn't make any kind of logical sense, but I doubt that many people ever scratch beneath the surface.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Christ in human form could die, he went into death with only his faith that he would live again, nothing more. He stood to lose everything. Death is death, the soul is not immortal. Humans with puny logic attempt to define the nature of God. A totally impossible task. Obviously though God, death was a real possibility for him.

Interesting that you would posit such. It is an admission (from your perspective) that not even Christ was completely sure of his "beliefs". That he wasn't sure of provision for the continuance of his existence through a "soul." In your last sentence, you allude that he was, indeed, God, after a fashion, and yet even God's faith in himself was prone to waiver. Very interesting. Not quite sure how any of us are expected to believe if God is not even able to believe in himself.

Your logic is also incredibly flawed - if they were "puny" flaws, then perhaps they could be forgiven. But I mean it when I say incredibly. I'll ask you a simple question - a question to which I believe I know your answer. Do you believe that the universe NEEDS God? If He stood to lose everything, as you claim, and the universe NEEDS God, then He was, in a sense, putting the entirety of creation in jeopardy by going about the business of becoming mortal. Does this sound like something He would do? Another question that could, potentially, tear your stance to pieces: is God omniscient? If He is, then He had knowledge of the fact that the crucifixion would occur, and would know that it would be "successful." From that perspective, it is also impossible for Him to have made a "sacrifice" of any meaning - He already knew that the outcome would favor His ideals.

Lastly, you would also likely claim that you speak according to the knowledge that God bestows on you, would you not? If this is the case, then any inconsistencies you bring to the table, any failure of logic that shows flaw enough to allow denunciation of your words as untruthful, well... they almost prove that God isn't influencing your communications as a witness, don't they? If not, then what are these issues and inconsistencies indicative of?

 

[pearl]

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:

Bizarre is the mentality that tries to make a 21st cent argument based on 1st cent mentality.

 

[shmogie]

Interesting that you would posit such. It is an admission (from your perspective) that not even Christ was completely sure of his "beliefs". That he wasn't sure of provision for the continuance of his existence through a "soul." In your last sentence, you allude that he was, indeed, God, after a fashion, and yet even God's faith in himself was prone to waiver. Very interesting. Not quite sure how any of us are expected to believe if God is not even able to believe in himself.

Your logic is also incredibly flawed - if they were "puny" flaws, then perhaps they could be forgiven. But I mean it when I say incredibly. I'll ask you a simple question - a question to which I believe I know your answer. Do you believe that the universe NEEDS God? If He stood to lose everything, as you claim, and the universe NEEDS God, then He was, in a sense, putting the entirety of creation in jeopardy by going about the business of becoming mortal. Does this sound like something He would do? Another question that could, potentially, tear your stance to pieces: is God omniscient? If He is, then He had knowledge of the fact that the crucifixion would occur, and would know that it would be "successful." From that perspective, it is also impossible for Him to have made a "sacrifice" of any meaning - He already knew that the outcome would favor His ideals.

Lastly, you would also likely claim that you speak according to the knowledge that God bestows on you, would you not? If this is the case, then any inconsistencies you bring to the table, any failure of logic that shows flaw enough to allow denunciation of your words as untruthful, well... they almost prove that God isn't influencing your communications as a witness, don't they? If not, then what are these issues and inconsistencies indicative of?

No inconsistency's just lack of understanding, on your part. The trinity (Godhead) is God, but it is composed of three separate and distinct points of consciousness, you have one. These points of consciousness are interlinked and can exist separately and distinctly from one another. Christ was totally human, but also had one of these points of consciousness, nevertheless humanity was a major restriction and impediment for him, an impediment that could lead to death. You substitute "beliefs" for my word faith, then go off on an irrelevant tangent. Faith is conviction that something will occur, one can have belief, without faith. You, not grasping the actuality, propose that if Christ died, the Godhead would die. That, of course, is wrong. No, God is not omniscient, either by nature or choice, he does not know what hasn't happened unless he uses omnipotence to bring about what he chooses. You have disproved nothing, your knowledge is seriously lacking and your "logic" is based upon a series mistakes grounded in your ignorance. The issue is Christ, who died, who ceased to exist till resurrected, his only assurance being his faith that it would occur.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No inconsistency's just lack of understanding, on your part. The trinity (Godhead) is God, but it is composed of three separate and distinct points of consciousness, you have one. These points of consciousness are interlinked and can exist separately and distinctly from one another. Christ was totally human, but also had one of these points of consciousness, nevertheless humanity was a major restriction and impediment for him, an impediment that could lead to death. You substitute "beliefs" for my word faith, then go off on an irrelevant tangent. Faith is conviction that something will occur, one can have belief, without faith. You, not grasping the actuality, propose that if Christ died, the Godhead would die. That, of course, is wrong. No, God is not omniscient, either by nature or choice, he does not know what hasn't happened unless he uses omnipotence to bring about what he chooses. You have disproved nothing, your knowledge is seriously lacking and your "logic" is based upon a series mistakes grounded in your ignorance. The issue is Christ, who died, who ceased to exist till resurrected, his only assurance being his faith that it would occur.

I can honestly only agree to one thing you replied with in the above - and that is that I do not understand. It is sort of a requirement of mine you see, that I understand a thing before I am willing to follow it. And certainly before I claim to worship it. I've been told quite a few times by those of belief - especially when my questions confound the issue to the point that they start making things up, or propose flimsy, inadequate excuses, excuses that many times even their fellow believers do not accept or agree upon - that God is "beyond my understanding." As such, according to my requirements, I simply cannot follow.

Also, by your own admission, can you not see that Christ then only thought he was making a sacrifice, and God knew that it was no sacrifice at all?

 

[shmogie]

However you state it, or phrase it, it doesn't make any logical sense. Then again, that's not it's appeal or purpose. It's supposed to appeal to people emotionally, which it does. Now, if you scratch beneath the surface, it's power to affect you emotionally seems like it would be hindered by the fact that it doesn't make any kind of logical sense, but I doubt that many people ever scratch beneath the surface.

Emotion has nothing to do with it. It doesn't make any logical sense to believe the universe created itself from nothing, but yet many, perhaps you, believe it to be true. It seems that those who speak of "logic" are being extremely selective about where they apply it. There are many things that defy "logic", but logic is just a descriptive word for limited human reasoning, it is not the key to understanding every fact or truth.