the Crucifiction

[terrafutan]

Greetings all

I think this is a really great forum. Lots of debates and differing points of view. I would like to add my voice to the discussions.

To start...

There is a tremendous amount of different opinion about Christ and the crucifiction.

Could we get a debate going on the following topics...

>Was there a crucifiction ?
>If so, who was actually crucified ?
>If it wasn't Christ then how did the 'switch' occur ?
>If it was, did he definately die ?
>Is it possible he was drugged or something to induce a comatose-like state which would explain the ressurection
supposition

Other questions include...

>The trial by Pilate was not a typical trial (ie at night and before the sabbath) - why would they do this ?
>When the average time of death by crucifiction was days, why did Christ 'die' within hours ? - this ties in with drugged question above.
>Are christians the only group that believe in the crucifiction ?
>What would happen if the crucifiction was proven untrue ?

TIA for your feedback

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What's true--what's not...

I don't believe there was a crucifixion. It was the Sabbath and strictly forbidden. I believed Jesus lived a long life and had a family with Mary Magdalene in the South of France. Jesus left Jerusalem before the crucifixion.

James, Jesus' brother, fiercely hated Paul. I find this to be rather strange. Besides, Paul didn't even know Jesus since they lived in different times.

Pontius Pilate let Jesus go free. Funny thing, too, Pontius Pilate retired in the South of France, too.

Most of the lies surrounding Jesus were made up by Paul. Paul was a business man. He created all the hype about Jesus Saves so he could sell amulets to dumb believers that by purchasing his amulets, they would be saved.

Jesus was a Rabbi, a teacher. All he wanted the people of his time to do was listen to his teachings to have a happier existence. Jesus was a Jew. He wanted people to be good Jews. Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity didn't come about until 325 AD. Unfortunately, it was never meant to be. Christianity is a false religion that has brainwashed civilization.

There is more truth in the Quran than in the Bible, and I'm not Muslim.

What will all the believing Christians do when the truth is revealed that all Jesus saved was himself?

 

[okinrus]

Jesus was crucified on Friday... the day before the Sabath.
Like I say M*W state the facts.

Jesus was a Rabbi, a teacher. All he wanted the people of his time to do was listen to his teachings to have a happier existence. Jesus was a Jew. He wanted people to be good Jews. Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity didn't come about until 325 AD. Unfortunately, it was never meant to be. Christianity is a false religion that has brainwashed civilization.

Haven't I already given you texts of authors way before 325AD calling themselves christians...

>The trial by Pilate was not a typical trial (ie at night and before the sabbath) - why would they do this ?

I would check up on this. Probably due to the difference in the roman time system and hebrew time system. You will have to look at what language the text was writen in.

>When the average time of death by crucifiction was days, why did Christ 'die' within hours ? - this ties in with drugged question above.

Jesus was scorged, mocked wearing a crown of thorns, and carried the cross falling down several times. On top of that, he stood up the entire day before praying.

>Are christians the only group that believe in the crucifiction ?
>What would happen if the crucifiction was proven untrue ?

Most Jews believe that Jesus was crucified. Well if it is untrue Jesus would probably not exist.

Here is a quote from add yasaf

"a) Tacitus, a Roman historian, in his Annals, c. AD 115, describes the Roman
Emperor Nero's actions after the great fire of Rome, c. AD 64:

"...Nero fabricated scapegoats-and punished...Christians (as they were
popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius'
reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus."

b) Lucian, Greek satirist, second century AD, alludes to Christ:

"...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new
cult into the world.... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them
that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once
for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist
himself and living under his laws."

c) Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian, c. AD 52, quoted by Julius
Africanus, c. AD 221:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness
[at the time of the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun- unreasonable, of
course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full
moon, and it was the time of the pascal full moon when Christ died."

d) Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, after AD 73 (this letter resides in the
British Museum):

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was
just after that that their kingdom was abolished....But Socrates did not die
for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for
good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good;
he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

2. Jewish sources:

a) Josephus, Jewish historian (AD 37-100) wrote of Jesus:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good,
and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other
nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to
die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his
discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after
his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the
Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders."

b) The Jewish Talmud (Centuries of Jewish oral tradition committed to
writing between AD 200 and AD 500):

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went
before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned
in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let
everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found
naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.""

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

I agree that there appears to be references to Christianity in the early 3 centuries. However - I’d like to comment on your statements since they are usually used to support the claims for the existence of Jesus, and such claims should not go unquestioned.

Tacitus.

The single reference to Christus having undergone a death penalty in his Annals written in 115 CE is some 90 years after the alleged event. I.e. he wasn’t an eye-witness. Where did he get this information? The Romans did not keep detailed records of the countless executions and crucifixions of which they indulged themselves in those times. Also he references Pilate as Procurator when instead he was a Prefect. This indicates Tacitus was not quoting any carefully researched material but instead was quoting the Christian mythology that was beginning to be generated at his time. He lacks credibility.

Lucian.

You need to quote Lucian (160s CE) in the full context. He was indeed a satirist and was severely mocking the Christians for believing in something for which there was no proof. He was quoting the mythology of the Gospels which were now beginning to circulate which gave the Christians their storyline about the alleged originator of their new religion. IOW Lucian isn’t a source of evidence for an actual Jesus.

Thallus quoted by Julius Africanus.

Here we have an obscure reference which in turn quotes another obscure historian, and all received second hand and exclusively filtered by later Christian commentators. This is evidence to how thin the evidence really is in support of an alleged Jesus.

Mara Bar-Serapion.

This is a real stretch and it is not even clear whether the references are to an alleged Christ or not.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/4/4mara95.html

Josephus.

Or the Testimonium Flavianum.

Josephus is important since he is potentially the only independent eye-witness to the existence of an actual Jesus. Yet his alleged statements have been in serious dispute since the 17th Century. It is now I believe universally accepted that the statements are corrupted to some extent at least. The corruption ranges from a complete forgery and blatant insertion by someone else, to just errors made by a Christian copyist.

There are many debates and articles on these issues. And like most things Christian, no definitive conclusion can be reached.

However, it helps to understand the life of Josephus and how he was involved in those times. Very briefly he was a traitor to the Jews and had become the mouthpiece for the Romans. If he had actually said those words that are claimed he wrote then he would almost certainly have been summarily executed.

If one looks at the other claimed evidence of those times and realizes the widespread generation of mythologies and the almost entire lack or recognition of the need for objective reporting, then it is not difficult to see how the myths of a Christ cult would have been generated.

It seems highly unlikely that Josephus made any reference to a Jesus in the manner claimed. If one looks at the entire long text then the single small paragraph being claimed to reference Jesus is inconsistent and out of context. It looks and feels like a blatant insertion by zealous Christians some centuries later. In fact the testimonium doesn’t appear until it is quoted by the historian Eusebius in the 4th century and it has been suggested that Eusebius inserted the offending text.

But yet again the claimed evidence for potentially the most important event in the history of mankind is highly dubious.

The Talmud.

At 200 CE it is rather late to be used as an independent and reliable source to support the existence of Jesus. It was entirely oral up until that time. But really the mythologies of the gospels had already circulated and the tellers of the Telmud would have been in no better position as the Christians to decide what was true or myth.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Cris

Josephus is important since he is potentially the only independent eye-witness to the existence of an actual Jesus. ...

< ... >

If one looks at the other claimed evidence of those times and realizes the widespread generation of mythologies and the almost entire lack or recognition of the need for objective reporting, then it is not difficult to see how the myths of a Christ cult would have been generated

See, for example:

3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star (20) resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, (21) [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner (22) [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

- Josephus: The Jewish War (VI.5.3)

 

[Cris]

CA,

Nice one. And this is from a highly respected historian.

The language of the times seems to have required the mystical hype perhaps to keep a largely ignorant and gullible populace entertained, and perhaps also under control.

It almost feels like a modern Hollywood success formula - e.g. sex and violence sells movies. In ancient times it was gods and miracles.

 

[Mucker]

Maybe the ressurection should be taken literally terrafutan. (Literally as in relating to literature, not physics (physicality)).

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The Sabbath

okinrus--again you have been unfortunately misled by your Xian Biblical brainwashing. According to Jewish law, the Sabbath begins at 6:00 PM on Friday evening and ends at 6:00 PM on Saturday. If Jesus had been on the crucifix, it couldn't have been more than 3 hours. Normally, crucifixions lasted for days/weeks, and it was a very slow death, and the ones being crucified were usually picked to death by vultures. Also, for your info, 'insurrection' (the crime Jesus supposedly was charged with) wasn't punishable by crucifixion as was more severe crimes like murder or adultry. I know you're young and gullible. I would suggest you broaden your resources since you obviously study Xianity avidly. Why limit yourself to one book? There are many publications that explain in detail why the Bible is inaccurate and why it is impractable and impossible that Jesus was a savior. I would recommend you read anything and everything by Laurence Gardner.

 

[Tiassa]

Old topic for consideration

Over a year ago, we engaged a similar topic here at Sciforums: The Crucifixion was a fraud

It gets long and combative in the end, but there's some good information in there to be considered before the whole thing breaks down.

Okinrus: The importance of Nicaea is that much of early Christianity was codified there. Prior to Nicaea, there was no real concept of the Trinity; the Nicene Creed is a political convention and not a true revelation of faith; Athanasius, in winning his debate against Arius, resorts to a form of docetism, a heresy denounced by the Apostolic Fathers, who both called themselves Christian and wrote before Nicaea.

We might also consider the gospels: Irenaeus of Lyon asserted in Adversus Haeresis that there were only four principle directions, four seasons, &c.--therefore there could be only four Gospels.

Yeah, that's the logic behind it:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man," -- an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;" and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet," -- pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (kaqolikai) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

Such it is.

A side note on "shorthand":

Recently, someone denouncing Wicca pointed to a web page that included a criticism that Wiccans apparently use the abbreviations Xian and Xianity. Technically, this isn't just a Wiccan thing, but I will say that it's an interesting net-related phenomenon. The actual "X" shorthand is considerably simpler: "Xn" for Christian, and "Xnty" for Christianity. It's a shorthand to be used in notes, but like all shorthand, people seem to dislike it in the final copy. I'm not so worried about that last aspect of it, but if you're going to abbreviate, let me please advise you that you can save further keystrokes. And no, M*W, you're not the only one. It just occurred to me to mention it while I was reading your latest in this topic. Seriously, all this note is about is saving people a couple of keystrokes here and there.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[Circe]

Re: the existence of Jesus

It's not really important whether one believes that Jesus existed or not (unless you run an institution that capitalizes on that idea). It's not the messenger but the message that counts.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: The Sabbath

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
okinrus--again you have been unfortunately misled by your Xian Biblical brainwashing. According to Jewish law, the Sabbath begins at 6:00 PM on Friday evening and ends at 6:00 PM on Saturday.

I truly feel little but contempt for such pretentious pedantry.

According to Jewish law, Shabbat begins at sundown Friday evening. The actual time differs from season to season. So, for example,

• candle lighting time last Friday, June 13th (Sivan 13) was 6:48 in Los Angeles and 7:10 in New York, while
• candle lighting time on Friday, January 10th (Shevat 7) was 4:45 in Los Angeles and 4:29 in New York.

Best I can tell, Medicine*Woman, you're a fraud, and not a very good one.

 

[okinrus]

Okinrus: The importance of Nicaea is that much of early Christianity was codified there. Prior to Nicaea, there was no real concept of the Trinity; the Nicene Creed is a political convention and not a true revelation of faith; Athanasius, in winning his debate against Arius, resorts to a form of docetism, a heresy denounced by the Apostolic Fathers, who both called themselves Christian and wrote before Nicaea.

We might also consider the gospels: Irenaeus of Lyon asserted in Adversus Haeresis that there were only four principle directions, four seasons, &c.--therefore there could be only four Gospels.

Yeah, that's the logic behind it:

http://home.earthlink.net/~defender/de01015.htm

The four gospel's were considered having the most authority http://www.bibarch.com/Scriptures/Matthew/Matthew.htm
Though that kind of begs the question why.

 

[RudeBoy]

okinrus--again you have been unfortunately misled by your Xian Biblical brainwashing. According to Jewish law, the Sabbath begins at 6:00 PM on Friday evening and ends at 6:00 PM on Saturday. If Jesus had been on the crucifix, it couldn't have been more than 3 hours. Normally, crucifixions lasted for days/weeks, and it was a very slow death, and the ones being crucified were usually picked to death by vultures. Also, for your info, 'insurrection' (the crime Jesus supposedly was charged with) wasn't punishable by crucifixion as was more severe crimes like murder or adultry. I know you're young and gullible. I would suggest you broaden your resources since you obviously study Xianity avidly. Why limit yourself to one book? There are many publications that explain in detail why the Bible is inaccurate and why it is impractable and impossible that Jesus was a savior. I would recommend you read anything and everything by Laurence Gardner.

Yes! Everyone should read the Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Laurence Gardner.

Link:freespace.virgin.net/peter.morley/lighter/hg1.html

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Yes! Everyone should read the Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Laurence Gardner.

Link:freespace.virgin.net/peter.morley/lighter/hg1.html

*************
M*W: Thank you, RudeBoy! Welcome to sciforums. I've read all his books.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Jesus is still around today. He has rooms booked at several state mental institutions worldwide. You can visit him every day if you wish, he can usually be found with his buddy Napoleon. If you're lucky you may encounter many other celebrities from the past there also.

 

[Hapsburg]

Crucifixion? No.
Crucifiction? Yes.

 

[Adstar]

Jesus was dead and buried before the sunset on wenseday. He died around 3 pm. They had to get him buried because they did not want anyone to be hanging dead on a cross on the High Sabbath (Feast of Unleaven Bread) that started on wenesday at sunset. Thats why they went out to break their legs so that they would die. But the guard did not break Jesus legs because he thought He was already dead. The guard made sure He was dead by stabing him with a spear.

There where two sabbaths during the week of Jesus execution. that is where the confusion sets in. Jesus was reasurected on saturday, the normal weekly Sabbath.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[SkinWalker]

I just gave Jesus $30 to mow my lawn yesterday.

His brother, Juan, did the edging.

 

[geeser]

terra: this was posted by a guy person called audible, on this site, and written by A Barnett. I dont know if there one and the same, but you will find it interesting, theres no doubt.

The crucifixion
The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is probably the single most important event in the xian religion. The crucifix itself, an instrument of torture and death, is the most common symbol associated with xians. It is found in their churches, in their houses and often hanging around their necks.

The inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the Easter story are well known.

The problem I have is with the whole point of the crucifixion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it actually happened). What was it all for? What good did it do?

The Death
How does crucifixion kill you? According to the Bible, it seems you can just hang there indefinitely until you feel like "giving up the ghost". In actual fact (correct me if I'm wrong) you die of asphyxiation. Hanging by your arms makes it more and more difficult to expand your chest until you can no longer draw air into your lungs. One of the reasons that the Romans would break the legs of the crucified was to speed up their death - they could not take any weight on their legs and the whole body was hanging by the arms.

( As an aside, it should also be noted that the Romans probably tied the wrists to the cross, and nailed the hands on to make sure the victim could not pull his hands free. If nails were used with no rope, the weight of the body would simply rip the nails through the hands. It has been mentioned that the nails were usually placed between the Radius and Ulna bones in the forearm, as they could support the weight. Presumably it was both the combination of the ropes and nails that held the victim in place. Interesting that you never see xian stigmatics showing rope marks on the wrist and nail marks on the fore-arms, and most images of jesus show him supported only by nails through the hand... )

The four gospels all give different accounts of (among many other things) Jesus' final words. Seems to me that he would hardly have been able to suck in a lungful of air, let alone make any sort of grand speeches.

The Sacrifice
I've read "The Lord sent his only son to die for me! How much more personal can you get?" ; also, I'm sure you've all heard "He died for our sins" and so on. It seems that some people almost celebrate the awful death of Jesus. Was it really some great selfless sacrifice, for the benefit of a world of sinners?

So the story goes, Jesus died and this somehow absolved all of humanity's sins, past, present and future. He then spent three days dead (some say He went to the underworld or Hell), came back to his physical body and then floated up to Heaven.

1. How was this a selfless sacrifice? He was marched up the hill by a bunch of heavily armed centurions. Was he really saying things like "No, it's okay, I want to do this. It's part of The Plan, you see."? (It has to be said that many human sacrifices do willingly go to their deaths, sure in the belief that they are doing it for the good of their people, and that their deity actually exists. They don't usually magically manipulate events to ensure that it happens, however...)
2. Maybe it somehow was a selfless sacrifice. In this case, why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed by the state? Why not just say to his disciples "Well guys, it's time to say Goodbye." and throw himself under the nearest chariot? Death is death. Did the manner in which jesus died actually make any difference?
3. It has never been adequately explained how this death freed us all from sin. If the death freed us from the consequences of sin (hell, or eternal oblivion), it is still unclear as to why it had to happen in this particular way. Why didn't God just sort it all out during Creation?
4. If Jesus is God, then how do we know he really suffered? Is it possible to inflict physical pain on an immortal, omnipotent entity? (see Suffering below) Maybe he was just faking it for the crowd...
5. If Jesus is God, then how was it a sacrifice? He only had to spend a few days "dead", then it was back home to Heaven (and he knew all this beforehand, being omniscient). A few days in the underworld can hardly have been a big deal for an eternal, omnipotent deity, can it? (And of course, being omnipresent as well, he would already have been there all the time anyway.)
6. What was he doing during those three days? (Some people say he was preaching to the lost souls in Hell.) Why three days anyway? Coming back to life after a couple of weeks would have impressed the superstitious locals much more.
7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn't suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide... (Of course, in Jesus' case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further).
8. Why didn't he stay dead? Not much of a sacrifice if you spring back to life a few days later, is it (especially if that was your intention right from the start)?
9. If Jesus had it all planned from the start (if you believe in the older prophecies), then it certainly was not a sacrifice. He must have used his God-Magic to manipulate events and ensure that the crucifixion occurred. This would include making Judas betray him.
10. Why is Judas so reviled? If he acted with Jesus' blessing, or even under divine coercion from Jesus, why is he portrayed as a bad person? Either way, he helped the crucifixion take place, so surely christians should admire him. Without Judas they might not have been Saved, or Jesus might have lived a lot longer and they'd have a much less impressive ornament to hang round their necks as a symbol of his death. A runaway horse maybe, or a slippery banana-skin or perhaps a poorly cooked chicken leg.
11. Why didn't Jesus let the disciples in on the big secret beforehand?
12. If Judas had not given Jesus a big ol' smacker, would nobody have known who he was? Had he been preaching, healing and overturning tables with a mask on, so that the only way in which the "great multitude" who came for him could recognise him was through Judas' kiss? Perhaps Jesus had a twin brother, and only Judas could easily tell them apart? Perhaps the other disciples were all wearing "Jesus Masks" to throw the crowd off the scent? Judas' part in all this would seem to be quite redundant if Jesus were at all recognisable to his enemies...

We are told that Jesus died for our sins, and his death on the cross saved us all from Hell (or eternal death). So why do we still get all the sermons about sin, heaven and hell? If we are all going to Heaven anyway, why do priests keep pestering us? If our afterlife still depends on living a good christian life then what difference did Jesus' death make? How did it change anything?

If Jesus has already "paid the price" for our sins, then surely we can now sin as much as we like. If not, why not? Or, if he only paid for Original Sin, that still doesn't explain why God needed a blood sacrifice to sort out something that could easily have been avoided in the first place. (Remember though, that the first murder in the Bible occurred as a result of God preferring a sacrifice of flesh to one of vegetables, for some obscure reason.)

If our getting into Heaven depends solely on accepting jesus as our personal Saviour, what about all those people who died without even hearing about him (for whatever reason)? If they get into heaven anyway, then jesus's death is irrelevant. In which case, why shouldn't the same apply to everyone? If God had never sent jesus to Earth, everyone would get into Heaven and there would be a few less bloody wars in the history books...

The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself, in order to prevent himself sending us all to Hell for commiting sins because of the way he made us, and which he knew we were going to do anyway, is a little hard to swallow...

The Suffering
A big thing is made about how much jesus suffered on the cross. While certainly quite nasty, there are much worse ways to die (and the followers of jesus have been quite inventive in thinking up new ones over the last couple of thousand years). If jesus's suffering was somehow supposed to be for our benefit, wouldn't we benefit more if his suffering had been greater (e.g. he might have been hung, drawn and quartered; or keelhauled; or sent to a Maria Carey concert)? Or, if he had suffered less (maybe quickly stabbed) would it have made any difference? All the other people who were crucified (and there were certainly plenty - the Romans were very big on crucifixions) would have suffered to a similar degree, if not more. How was jesus's suffering any different to theirs?

Crucifixion is obviously a particularly horrific way to die. However, being God, Jesus would have known not only the pain involved in crucifixion, but also the pain involved in every other possible manner of dying. God would be perfectly aware of tortures, diseases and injuries that make crucifixion seem like a picnic on a warm summer day. When people go on about how terrible His death was, how much he suffered, and that it allowed Him to experience human suffering, I think "But if he was God, a few hours on the cross would have been utterly insignificant to Him and He would already know exactly what all possible forms of human suffering are like."

Some people argue that jesus suffered more than just physical pain - he suffered spiritual pain because he was taking all of our sins on himself. Unfortunately, this spiritual suffering didn't seem to make enough of an impression on the writers of the Gospels for them to note it down... This also begs the question - If He suffered "spiritual pain", why was it necessary for Him to also suffer physical pain? Couldn't He have atoned and suffered without being nailed to a stick first? At what point did the spiritual pain begin and end, and why?

Presumably this atonement includes the sins of people in the past and future (including, I guess, all those whom He mercilessly drowned in Noah's Flood), as well as at the time of the crucifixion. In that case, why did God have to come to earth at all and be sacrificed (to himself)? Why not just sort it all out right at the time of Creation? What happened to those who died before Christ did? Were they just sort of floating around in limbo, waiting for the time of the Atonement?

So jesust suffered horribly and died (temporarily) for His beliefs? So what?
How many people suffer far, far worse deaths every single year for no good reason whatsoever? (Ironically, sometimes at the hands of jesus's followers.) People who are brutally murdered because of the colour of their skin, or their sexuality, or their beliefs, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Original Sin
If it simply freed us from (or paid the price for) Original Sin (Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world), does that mean that all those people who died before Jesus didn't have a chance? Or did his death retro-actively Save them as well? In which case, why did he have to die at all? Why not just remove Original Sin right at the start?

Or, if God took Original Sin into account when judging people, and Jesus removed it, won't more souls go to Hell as a result? Before, God might have said "Well, you're a sinner but you're tainted by Original Sin, so I'll let you off lightly this time.", whereas now, a person who committed the same sins wouldn't stand a chance! Very fair...

A fatal flaw in the Original Sin argument is this :
There is no such thing as Original Sin.
Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are mere mythology. The evolutionary origins of all life, including humans, are well understood. We did not magically pop into existence several thousand years ago in a luxurious garden, complete with talking reptiles and magic apples. We have evolved over millions of years to reach our current state. This is scientific fact, in the same way that gravity is. Like it or not, there was no Eve to commit an Original Sin in the first place. It seems a little more likely that after Jesus' death, his followers had to think up some sort of supernatural justification pretty quickly, and Original Sin seemed as good as any. Your Great-great-great..........great-great-grandparents were not called Adam and Eve.

In order to accept that Jesus' death washed away Original Sin (and therefore had any meaning at all), you are forced to subscribe to the young-Earth creationist view that the universe is about 6000 years old, and was created just as described in the Book Of Genesis. This would mean that almost all sciences (including the sciences that allow us to generate the electricity that is letting you read this document) are totally wrong about everything. This is one of the main reasons why creationists object so strongly to evolution. It implies (or demonstrates) that the basic concept behind xianity is simply false.

There was nothing for jesus to atone for, so the crucifixion was meaningless.


thanks A Barnett.

 

[duendy]

Greetings all

me::: Greetngs

I think this is a really great forum. Lots of debates and differing points of view. I would like to add my voice to the discussions.

To start...

There is a tremendous amount of different opinion about Christ and the crucifiction.

Could we get a debate going on the following topics...

>Was there a crucifiction ?

me:::Itis really besind the point--mythically speaking. myth and history are different--altough mythology may utilize hisrtorical events, its main essence is to be out-of-time so it is meaning someting to the individual now whenever......history is more'dead news'....it has happened

>If so, who was actually crucified ?
>If it wasn't Christ then how did the 'switch' occur ?
>If it was, did he definately die ?
>Is it possible he was drugged or something to induce a comatose-like state which would explain the ressurection
supposition

Other questions include...

>The trial by Pilate was not a typical trial (ie at night and before the sabbath) - why would they do this ?
>When the average time of death by crucifiction was days, why did Christ 'die' within hours ? - this ties in with drugged question above.
>Are christians the only group that believe in the crucifiction ?
>What would happen if the crucifiction was proven untrue ?

me:::it already is proven 'untrue' rgarding historical evidence.
you questions are all literalist questions which really only allow limited literalist answers.
the real meaning of crucifixion means you....ie., Jesus' crucifixion is really a symbolic meanig--which was appropriated from paganism-where crucixiion was used as mythological motif......andits meaning is you having a death rebirth xperience. it is connected cryptically with the psychedelic sacred sacrament--the mushroom, ad te experience of symbolically dying and being reborn again. a very anient idea in the pagan world which chrstians adopted for their belief. where they ddiffer from many pagan original stories is their insistence the even was/is HISTORICAL....!

TIA for your feedback

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.....((((^))))