Jesus on the cross

MooseJam · 08-12-2009 12:39am #1

Jesus was God, he rose people from the dead, turned water into wine, fed the masses etc etc, so I am wondering when on the cross did he just switch pain off and if not why not.

I don't think anything positive could be said about anyone enduring pain that they do not have to, the only people who do so these days are well it doesn't need to be stated for fear of causing offense but I'm sure you get my drift.

Why not switch pain off - we would be none the wiser, perhaps her did as he was only human after all and thats a lot of pain to endure when you can just switch it off.

Fanny Cradock · 08-12-2009 1:14am

Jesus was flesh and blood - like you or anyone else - so I would think the answer is, "no, he couldn't switch off pain".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)

MooseJam · 08-12-2009 1:19am

So how did he raise the dead, turn water into wine, feed the masses, live for 40 days without food and water etc etc

Fanny Cradock · 08-12-2009 2:48am

It's in the link I provided. Mainstream Christian theology holds to the idea that Jesus was both man and God - two entities for want of a better word) joined but still distinct.

MooseJam · 08-12-2009 2:56am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's in the link I provided. Mainstream Christian theology holds to the idea that Jesus was both man and God - two entities for want of a better word) joined but still distinct.

Fair enough, but please explain how he could raise the dead but could not switch off pain.

PDN · 08-12-2009 2:59am

MooseJam wrote: »

Fair enough, but please explain how he could raise the dead but could not switch off pain.

To turn off pain would render the Cross pointless. Jesus died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world (the suffering of hell multiplied by the billions of people who have ever lived). That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men.

Dr_Phil · 08-12-2009 3:02am

PDN wrote: »

To turn off pain would render the Cross pointless. Jesus died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world

As a matter of interest: why do we still face The Judgement Day then and why do we have to confess our sins? And why (if) purgatory exists?

Fanny Cradock · 08-12-2009 3:03am

Also, I don't believe there is mention that Jesus went without water for 40 days. Jesus is tempted by food and not water, which seems like a strong reason for believing that he was consuming water. It is possible to go without food for that amount of time. Why, amongst others, I believe that our very own PDN has done so!

I think that you would have to go back to Moses to find the claim that somebody fasted (food and water) for 40 days. I think one is left with a number of choices.

1) It's a fabrication;
2) It's an error;
3) Fasting may not necessarily have been understood as giving up all forms of sustenance for the entire period;
4) It was a miracle.

MooseJam · 08-12-2009 3:10am

PDN wrote: »

To turn off pain would render the Cross pointless. Jesus died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world (the suffering of hell multiplied by the billions of people who have ever lived). That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men.

So Jesus was not flesh and blood ?

PDN · 08-12-2009 3:11am

Dr_Phil wrote: »

As a matter of interest: why do we still face The Judgement Day then and why do we have to confess our sins? And why (if) purgatory exists?

You have to face Judgement Day if you refuse to accept Christ's offer of salvation. It would be like a cheque for a large amount of money that would do you no good at all if you don't bother cashing it. We 'cash the cheque' by placing our faith in Christ (which involves confessing our sins to God).

As for purgatory, I'm the wrong guy to ask about that since I don't believe in it.

PDN · 08-12-2009 3:12am

MooseJam wrote: »

So Jesus was not flesh and blood ?

What on earth are you on about? Who said anything about Him not being flesh and blood?

Dr_Phil · 08-12-2009 3:15am

PDN wrote: »

You have to face Judgement Day if you refuse to accept Christ's offer of salvation. It would be like a cheque for a large amount of money that would do you no good at all if you don't bother cashing it. We 'cash the cheque' by placing our faith in Christ (which involves confessing our sins to God).

I always thought that this is something like being invited for a Christmas party, when the company covers all the expenses.

And (here is the valid point) I don't have to take extra overtime to work it out.

PDN · 08-12-2009 3:18am

Dr_Phil wrote: »

I always thought that this is something like being invited for a Christmas party, when the company covers all the expenses.

And (here is the valid point) I don't have to take extra overtime to work it out.

No, you don't have to work overtime - but you do have to get off your backside and actually go to the party.

MooseJam · 08-12-2009 3:37am

PDN wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? Who said anything about Him not being flesh and blood?

you stated "That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men"

so I'm sorry but I'm not seeing an entity whose capacity for pain is INFINITELY, lets think about that for a moment, it's a big word, greater than that of ordinary men as being flesh and blood.

My reading of flesh and blood is that he who is such is one of us, human, and would suffer pain as any of us would.

I do not regard , nor do I believe any reasonable person would, an entity whose tolerance of pain is infinite as being of flesh and blood.

I regard myself as flesh and blood and I do not have an infinite tolerence of pain, nor do any of my peers who I also believe to be flesh and blood.

I do not believe Jesus Christ was of flesh and blood nor do I believe you can state he was given your belief of his INFINITE capacity for pain.

There is nothing "INFINITE" in flesh and blood. Once you voice that word you have left the bounds of humanity.

PDN · 08-12-2009 5:08am

MooseJam wrote: »

you stated "That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men"

so I'm sorry but I'm not seeing an entity whose capacity for pain is INFINITELY, lets think about that for a moment, it's a big word, greater than that of ordinary men as being flesh and blood.

Jesus was (and indeed still is) both God and man. As man He was flesh and blood. As God He was infinite.

My reading of flesh and blood is that he who is such is one of us, human, and would suffer pain as any of us would.

Yes, he would suffer physical pain like any of us. But the biblical teaching is that the real redemptive suffering of the Cross was spiritual rather than physical - "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" etc.

I do not regard , nor do I believe any reasonable person would, an entity whose tolerance of pain is infinite as being of flesh and blood.

There you are plainly wrong. For millions of reasonable people believe just that.

I do not believe Jesus Christ was of flesh and blood nor do I believe you can state he was given your belief of his INFINITE capacity for pain.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want - but your beliefs are somewhat irrelevant in that this is the Christianity forum and you, as I understand, are not a Christian.

There is nothing "INFINITE" in flesh and blood. Once you voice that word you have left the bounds of humanity.

According to your definition of humanity, maybe. But not for the rest of us.

MooseJam · 08-12-2009 5:38am

PDN wrote: »

There you are plainly wrong. For millions of reasonable people believe just that.

I'll reply to your other points later but to state that I am plainly wrong for millions of reasonable people believe just that is laughable.

For each of your reasonable persons I'll give you 5 who do not believe such.

Christianity is not as widespread as you seem to believe.

PDN · 08-12-2009 6:35am

MooseJam wrote: »

I'll reply to your other points later but to state that I am plainly wrong for millions of reasonable people believe just that is laughable.

For each of your reasonable persons I'll give you 5 who do not believe such.

Christianity is not as widespread as you seem to believe.

Why don't you read what people post before you respond.

You said, "I do not regard , nor do I believe any reasonable person would, an entity whose tolerance of pain is infinite as being of flesh and blood,"

You are plainly wrong in your belief that no reasonable person would regard such an entity as human, since, as I've pointed out, millions of reasonable people do regard Him as human.

So, it's nothing to do with how widespread Christianity is since the existence of even one reasonable person believing Jesus to be both human and divine shows your statement to be false.

Now go away and stop trolling this forum.

Zombrex · 08-12-2009 10:14am

MooseJam wrote: »

Christianity is not as widespread as you seem to believe.

In fairness you asked a question along the lines of Why didn't Jesus simply turn off his pain if he was capable of miracles and got a pretty straight forward answer, that the whole point of the crucification from the Christian perspective was the pain, that was the sacrifice by Jesus, and thus turning off the pain would make that pointless.

It would be like kicking someone in the groan and then saying because fair is fair you will let them kick you back but would they do it when you were unconscious. They would say no, they want to do it when you are wake so you feel the whole thing, otherwise it is not like for like.

Of all the bits of the resurrection story that I feel don't make sense that wouldn't be one of them.

kelly1 · 08-12-2009 11:27am

MooseJam wrote: »

Jesus was God, he rose people from the dead, turned water into wine, fed the masses etc etc, so I am wondering when on the cross did he just switch pain off and if not why not.

Do you really know so little about Christianity? How could Jesus atone for the sins of the world if He didn't suffer pain and die? He died for us willingly!

You remind me of the people who mocked Jesus and asked Him why He couldn't save Himself as He hung on the cross. He didn't want to or need to save Himself. He wanted to save us. Does that not give you some idea how much Jesus loves us?

Fanny Cradock · 09-12-2009 9:59pm

BTW, if you are still confused about what pain and suffering had to do with the cross, Vinoth Ramachandra gives a nice explanation about it in this talk People Suffer - Who Cares?.

Pompey Magnus · 09-12-2009 10:10pm

PDN wrote: »

To turn off pain would render the Cross pointless. Jesus died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world (the suffering of hell multiplied by the billions of people who have ever lived).

What do you base this on, the Gospel of Mel Gibson? The actual Gospel writer were far less obsessed with the suffering of Jesus than certain Christians are today, the Gospel accounts barely mention the pain Jesus went through so I don't see why you assume pain had a pivotal part to play in the event.

PDN · 09-12-2009 10:21pm

Charco wrote: »

What do you base this on, the Gospel of Mel Gibson?

Do you want to ask serious questions or act the goat? I base it on the Scriptural principle of Penal Substitution.

hivizman · 09-12-2009 11:03pm

Charco wrote: »

The actual Gospel writers were far less obsessed with the suffering of Jesus than certain Christians are today, the Gospel accounts barely mention the pain Jesus went through so I don't see why you assume pain had a pivotal part to play in the event.

The Gospel writers had no need to tell their immediate readers in the first century about the painful nature of crucifixion - it is highly likely that many readers would have seen (though obviously not personally experienced) crucifixions taking place, and appreciated the agonising nature of the punishment.

There is an interesting verse in Mark's Gospel (15:23) "And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it." There is some evidence in the Babylonian Talmud that people about to be crucified were offered strong aromatic wine as a soporific and anaesthetic, so as to reduce the sensation of pain suffered on the cross (see also Proverbs 31:6 - "Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress"). Mark has Jesus specifically refusing the offer of desensitising wine, implying that he was willing to feel and suffer fully the pain of crucifixion.

PDN · 09-12-2009 11:11pm

Of interest here is the etymology of our English word 'excruciating'. It literally means 'from the Cross'.

Fanny Cradock · 10-12-2009 6:57pm

In 70BC Cicero was commissioned with the task of prosecuting Verras, a former governor of Sicily. His speeches were later published in the work Against Verras. With regards to the act of crucifixion, this non-Christian says the following.

"It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen; to scourge him is a wickedness; to put him to death is almost parricide. What shall I say of crucifying him? So guilty an action cannot by any possibility be adequately expressed by any name bad enough for it." Cic. Ver. 2.5.170

Not that anyone is denying there was dreadful pain involved, but one can read this article to find out exactly what these MD's believed would have happened to the victim of crucifixion - in this case a certain man called Jesus Christ .

chozometroid · 11-12-2009 12:57am

MooseJam wrote: »

So how did he raise the dead, turn water into wine, feed the masses, live for 40 days without food and water etc etc

He did those things through the power of the Holy Spirit, not by being part God. He was like us, except "born again" (born of the Spirit) from birth. Once we are born again Christians, we really have the potential to do everything Jesus Christ did (other than atoning for the sin of the world).

lmaopml · 11-12-2009 1:21am

MooseJam wrote: »

Jesus was God, he rose people from the dead, turned water into wine, fed the masses etc etc, so I am wondering when on the cross did he just switch pain off and if not why not.

I don't think anything positive could be said about anyone enduring pain that they do not have to, the only people who do so these days are well it doesn't need to be stated for fear of causing offense but I'm sure you get my drift.

Why not switch pain off - we would be none the wiser, perhaps her did as he was only human after all and thats a lot of pain to endure when you can just switch it off.

Hi MoosJam, to be honest your question kinda sounds like the same reasons why he refused to give in to temptation in the desert....This is what happened....

Matt.4: 1-11 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" Then the devil took Him into the holy city; and he had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'He will give His angels charge concerning You'; and 'On their hands they will bear You up, Lest You strike Your foot against a stone.'" Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things will I give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.

That's what Jesus came to achieve, to experience and overcome his human aspect and to still choose to die for our sins out of love.....He was the ultimate sacrifice of love. I think he wanted us to know and understand this.

monosharp · 11-12-2009 5:36am

PDN wrote: »

To turn off pain would render the Cross pointless. Jesus died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the world (the suffering of hell multiplied by the billions of people who have ever lived). That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men.

I have tried, I honestly have, but I can never understand this for so many reasons.

1. Crucifixion, relatively speaking, is not that bad. It was the worst punishment that the Romans used and was obviously feared across the Roman world which goes a long way to explain why it was seen as such a terrible thing to happen to Jesus. But there are any number of worse ways to die. Seppuku for example is supposed to be excruciating (yet quick), impalement, scaphism is frightening, the brazen bull, and drawing and quatering is the definition of cruel and unusual.

2. Regardless of the execution method or believing that Jesus was suffering pain manys times greater because of the sins of humanity, pain is simply an electrical impulse from one part of your body to the brain. Obviously its displeasureable but at the same time its entirely physical and can be controlled.

Just look at the example of Lâm Văn Tức, the man sat down on the street in the lotus position, waited for his mates to pour petrol over him and light him on fire. He sat there motionless and silent, meditating while his body slowly burned itself away and he died.

And this is just one almost insignificant example. Some people can control/stop their heart just by meditating, some people can completely ignore emotions, some people can turn pain into pleasure.

Pain is completely irrelevant in such a discussion and again it only furthers the argument that it was used as a ways of frightening the masses, especially back then when people were completely ignorant as to its cause.

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage. By its very definition it is limited and because of its very nature it is irrelevant.

All emotions and feelings are human concepts and can be explained biologically and chemically. Love, hate, anger, sadness, happiness, pleasure, pain are all just a matter of chemicals so I assume when you say Jesus suffered, you mean some other kind of suffering which we are incapable of experiening ? Which again, makes the very idea irrelevant.

3. Capacity for pain is entirely subjective and irrelevant.

wiki wrote:

A pain scale measures a patient's pain intensity or other features. Pain scales are based on self-report, observational (behavioral), or physiological data. Self-report is considered primary and should be obtained if possible. Pain scales are available for neonates, infants, children, adolescents, adults, seniors, and persons whose communication is impaired.

If your pain capacity was 10 and mine was 2, you set us both on fire, just what do you think the difference would be ?

Well the first thing that would happen is I would probably pass out before you from the pain. But lets just assume we both took a drug to keep us from passing out.

Now whats the difference ? Nothing. Maybe I'm in more discomfort then you which is again, entirely subjective.

Lets pretend that we are both set on fire but for some reason we don't burn and consequently die and just continue to feel pain forever. Guess what happens now ? The pain, excruciating as it could possibly be, now becomes normal and relatively quickly it becomes absolutely normal to us to feel this way and is no longer even uncomfortable.

4. WHY did Jesus NEED to die for our sins ? god is the top guy in this universe isn't he ? What possible reason would he have to require his son to die ? It makes absolutely no sense.

5. Take out a history book on any country in the world, look through it for 5 minutes and you'll find someone who sacrificed themselves to a very painful death for some good reason or other.

PDN · 11-12-2009 10:42am

monosharp wrote: »

I have tried, I honestly have, but I can never understand this for so many reasons.

The main reason you can't understand is that you insist on viewing pain as something that is primarily physical.

The fact is that emotional pain can be far worse. I had, on one occasion, the skin burnt off both my lower legs and feet by boiling water. On another occasion I saw my young daughter die. I can assure you that the second incident was infinitely more painful than the first.

On the Cross the primary suffering endured by Jesus was spiritual rather than physical. Monosharp, you are incapable of understanding spiritual pain since, according to the Bible, your spirit is dead in sin. You don't understand the concept of atonement, and you never will unless your spirit is regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

hivizman · 11-12-2009 1:17pm

PDN wrote: »

On the Cross the primary suffering endured by Jesus was spiritual rather than physical.

Important evidence of this is Jesus's cry "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Given that Jesus was, and knew he was, both Son of God and God the Son, how could he possibly have uttered this unless, at the climax of the crucifixion, the overwhelming anguish manifested itself through intense feelings of separation from God. If ordinary believers suffer through feeling that they are separated from God, how much more so would God the Son experience such an emotional suffering?

This cry has been a focus of attention from Muslim critics of the crucifixion story. One view is that it is simply logically impossible for God, in the person of God the Son, to challenge God for forsaking God. Hence Jesus could not be divine. Another view is that God would never forsake one of his most important prophets, so either the person castigating God for forsaking him could not have been Jesus (that is, someone else was substituted for Jesus), or the crucifixion did not take place. I don't accept these arguments, but as Islam rejects the concept of atonement, it needs to explain away the crucifixion.

Attempting to measure or quantify the amount of pain suffered by Jesus on the cross is bound to lead to difficulties - could a point be reached in human history where it could turn out that Jesus had not "suffered enough", so that the "price of sin" paid by the atonement had run out? However, I don't think we can put a limit to the spiritual pain that must have been experienced by Jesus (God the Son) through feeling utterly forsaken by God (either in the person of the Father or as a triune unity).

chozometroid · 12-12-2009 12:12am

We should also remember that upon hearing that Lazarus died, Jesus wept, just as most emotionally attached people would. Even though He was able to, and did, raise Lazarus from the dead, He could not help but express His sadness over the event. I would imagine it was His human nature that made this happen. Then He kinda just pulled Himself together and remembered that nothing is too big for God. With faith as big (or bigger than) a mustard seed, Jesus was able to perform the resurrection miracle.

Jesus Christ's human nature is such a fantastic reality. It is very inspiring.

Jesus on the cross

Comments