Jesus on the cross

MooseJam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fanny Cradock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

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

Are you purposely misunderstanding me ?

I said "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."

So lets keep this simple.

- The physical suffering Jesus experienced on the cross is irrelevant as outlined by my last post.
- Any psychological pain Jesus experienced on the cross is also irrelevant for mostly the same reasons but I will now expand further.

wikipedia wrote:

Psychological pain, also called sometimes psychalgia, is any mental, or mind, or non physical suffering. Emotional pain is a particular kind of psychological pain, more closely related to emotions. Another kind that is commonly found is spiritual or soul pain.
In recent years there has been some prominence to quite controversial lawsuits in which the plaintiff seeks redress for pain and suffering that are not physical at all but purely psychological.[citation needed]
Recent research in neuroscience suggests that physical pain and psychological pain may share some underlying neurological mechanisms

The fact is that emotional pain can be far worse.

Yes it most certainly can and I never said otherwise and I in fact agree with you on this point so much because I myself fear psychological pain much more then I fear any physical torment.

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.

You have my condolences.

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

Now hang on a second,you've gone from emotional to spiritual. Which is it ?

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.

PDN, I can make just as much a case against emotional (non physical) pain as I can against physical pain. Its entirely scientific and can be explained relatively easily. It can also be controlled by individuals just as physical pain can be and I can give you some more examples like the burning monk except with psychological pain substituted for being burned alive if you want.

As for this spiritual pain, unless its the same as psychological pain, which according to Wikipedia it is (strangely, I think thats a mistake is it ?) then I cannot make any argument against it which also makes it completely irrelevant at the same time.

You are telling me Christ suffered for us in a way that I cannot even comprehend, and yet for all other 'kinds' of suffering we see in this world, physical and psychological, we have perfectly valid scientific explanations for them and I have shown these types of suffering to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If the other types of suffering are irrelevant then why would 'spiritual' suffering be the exception ?

If Jesus suffered some way I can't even comprehend then how or why should I care ? I have no idea what kind of suffering it was, I have no idea how strong it way, I have nothing real to measure it against. Maybe his suffering was the equivalent of a bee sting.

So my point again.

Suffering is a human concept and as a human concept its completely subjective. I have shown you that physical and psychological pain are completely irrelevant so you have come up with another kind of pain which you claim I can't understand.

So Jesus was a man and a god who 'suffered' in some way that most people cannot comprehend. Its not even right to use the word suffer here anymore is it ?

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

We should also remember that upon hearing that Lazarus died, Jesus wept, just as most emotionally attached people would.

Which proves ... ?

Even though He was able to, and did, raise Lazarus from the dead, He could not help but express His sadness over the event.

Which is again, a human concept. The sadness over a death is natural but it is also magnified by the type of society we have evolved into since hunter-gatherer times.

Monkeys/dogs/cats etc all experience emotional and physical pain the same as we do.

Pain, emotional or physical is highly controllable and subjective.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Are you purposely misunderstanding me ?

I said "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."

So lets keep this simple.

- The physical suffering Jesus experienced on the cross is irrelevant as outlined by my last post.
- Any psychological pain Jesus experienced on the cross is also irrelevant for mostly the same reasons but I will now expand further.





Yes it most certainly can and I never said otherwise and I in fact agree with you on this point so much because I myself fear psychological pain much more then I fear any physical torment.



You have my condolences.



Now hang on a second,you've gone from emotional to spiritual. Which is it ?



PDN, I can make just as much a case against emotional (non physical) pain as I can against physical pain. Its entirely scientific and can be explained relatively easily. It can also be controlled by individuals just as physical pain can be and I can give you some more examples like the burning monk except with psychological pain substituted for being burned alive if you want.

As for this spiritual pain, unless its the same as psychological pain, which according to Wikipedia it is (strangely, I think thats a mistake is it ?) then I cannot make any argument against it which also makes it completely irrelevant at the same time.

You are telling me Christ suffered for us in a way that I cannot even comprehend, and yet for all other 'kinds' of suffering we see in this world, physical and psychological, we have perfectly valid scientific explanations for them and I have shown these types of suffering to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If the other types of suffering are irrelevant then why would 'spiritual' suffering be the exception ?

If Jesus suffered some way I can't even comprehend then how or why should I care ? I have no idea what kind of suffering it was, I have no idea how strong it way, I have nothing real to measure it against. Maybe his suffering was the equivalent of a bee sting.

So my point again.

Suffering is a human concept and as a human concept its completely subjective. I have shown you that physical and psychological pain are completely irrelevant so you have come up with another kind of pain which you claim I can't understand.

So Jesus was a man and a god who 'suffered' in some way that most people cannot comprehend. Its not even right to use the word suffer here anymore is it ?

The pain Jesus suffered on the Cross was physical, emotional and spiritual. Three different kinds of pain affecting his body, soul, and spirit. But the biggest concentration of suffering was undoubtedly spiritual.

You are unable to understand the concept of spiritual pain, but that does not make it irrelevant. The reality or relevance of something does not depend on monosharp being able to understand it (unless you think you are God?)

I don't think suffering is a purely human concept, but hang on, I'll just go and check it out: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Yep, my dog howled when I kicked him so I'm pretty sure suffering is NOT just a subjective human concept.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The pain Jesus suffered on the Cross was physical, emotional and spiritual. Three different kinds of pain affecting his body, soul, and spirit. But the biggest concentration of suffering was undoubtedly spiritual.

Physical pain - irrelevant.
Emotional pain - irrelevant.
Spiritual pain - I don't know what this is, I can't experience it.

What is spiritual suffering ? Are Christians the only ones who know what spiritual suffering is ? Do I have to accept Jesus first before I can understand it ?

You are saying the biggest concentration of suffering was spiritual because you want it to be. Whereas in the past when people were less knowledgeable they emphasized the physical pain.

You are claiming spiritual pain and leaving me no possible way to argue against it.

You are unable to understand the concept of spiritual pain, but that does not make it irrelevant. The reality or relevance of something does not depend on monosharp being able to understand it (unless you think you are God?)

Well it certainly makes it it irrelevant to me and irrelevant to all the other non-Christians in the world.

Jesus suffered a special kind of suffering which I can't understand or experience unless I accept Jesus as my savoir, thats absolutely meaningless.

Its like me saying to you "My X is so sore, I whamambled it last night".
Do you really think I care Jesus 'suffered' X when I can't understand it ?

I don't think suffering is a purely human concept, but hang on, I'll just go and check it out:

Yep, my dog howled when I kicked him so I'm pretty sure suffering is NOT just a subjective human concept.

How much suffering did your dog just have compared to 12 people being burned alive ?

Suffering is a subjective human concept. Physical and psychological pain are completely natural biological processes.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Physical pain - irrelevant.
Emotional pain - irrelevant.
Spiritual pain - I don't know what this is, I can't experience it.

What is spiritual suffering ? Are Christians the only ones who know what spiritual suffering is ? Do I have to accept Jesus first before I can understand it ?

Probably. The biblical teaching is that our spirits are dead in transgressions and sins and do not come alive until we are in Christ. So you lack the capacity to appreciate spiritual truth.

You are saying the biggest concentration of suffering was spiritual because you want it to be. Whereas in the past when people were less knowledgeable they emphasized the physical pain.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The writings of the early Church Fathers state repeatedly that Christ suffered spiritually. In fact, some of the Church Fathers (eg Origen and Gregory of Nyassa) went further and argued that hell would similarly consist of spiritual rather than physical pain.

You are claiming spiritual pain and leaving me no possible way to argue against it.

And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why you keep falling foul of the moderators on this forum. You don't understand something, but you still want to argue against it. You think this forum should provide people like you with a platform to argues against stuff you don't understand, rather than a place where people can discuss and learn.

You, sir, by your own words, have just demonstrated that you are a troll.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Which proves ... ?



Which is again, a human concept. The sadness over a death is natural but it is also magnified by the type of society we have evolved into since hunter-gatherer times.

Monkeys/dogs/cats etc all experience emotional and physical pain the same as we do.

Pain, emotional or physical is highly controllable and subjective.

I wasn't even talking to you. I'm just discussing Jesus' human nature, not arguing with someone who thinks Jesus' emotions are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Physical pain - irrelevant.
Emotional pain - irrelevant.
Spiritual pain - I don't know what this is, I can't experience it.

I've never heard anyone describe physical and emotional pain of this magnitude as irrelevant - whatever the context. We spend billions each year in trying to relieve ourselves of pain.

And with this in mind, I find it rather bizarre that you post a picture of Lâm Văn Tức and try to draw some close parallels with another form of death. Has anyone here claimed that it is impossible to suppress pain? Nope! We just haven't hypothesised that Jesus went into some 7 hour trance while on the cross. The accounts of his crucifixion certainly suggest otherwise - that he was fully concious and in considerable physical pain.

Further to this, the claim (at least from people here) isn't that Jesus was the one person who has suffered the most physically painful death in the history of agonising deaths. It seems to me that you are so desperate to prove that others have suffered more that you make silly statements like "crucifixion, relatively speaking, is not that bad"! Which leaves me wondering how you know this, and why you think it is at all relevant?

That emotional (and physical) pain or pleasure can be explained by science isn't an issue because nobody has claimed otherwise. So if you want to believe emotions like love, hate and, presumably, overarching concepts like beauty and good can ultimately be reduced to "just a matter of chemicals", I'll say good for you. But even then I'll still be left wondering how this is supposed to make emotional pain irrelevant.

As for spiritual pain, it's a difficult one to try even attempt to explain, and I'm not sure I can. I simply don't understand it other than to say it was integral to the cross. But I'll disagree with PDN here and state that non-Christians are very much capable of experiencing it. This is why I think there is so much interest in an explanation beyond the reductionism that you speak of.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've never heard anyone describe physical and emotional pain of this magnitude as irrelevant - whatever the context. We spend billions each year in trying to relieve ourselves of pain.

I have already shown you several examples of why physical and emotional pain is irrelevant. Do I need to repeat them ?

Lâm Văn Tức sat down on the street, had petrol poured over him and then set on fire. He sat perfectly still and perfectly silent for 10 minutes while his body burned away before falling over dead.

Imagine the pain he went through and yet he controlled it perfectly.

Buddhist monks are one group among many who show us that the mind controls the body and can simply ignore pain.

Similarly Buddhist monks control emotional pain, or rather see it for what it is and ignore it. Heres one example.

And Buddhist monks are just one group, ordinary people do this every day too to some extent. You, me and everyone does this at some stage of our life.

So because of Lâm Văn Tức's suffering, does that make him divine ? Or should we all worship him ? Or Buddha ?

And with this in mind, I find it rather bizarre that you post a picture of Lâm Văn Tức and try to draw some close parallels with another form of death.

Your purposely moving the argument, I made parallels with suffering and pain, not with death.

Has anyone here claimed that it is impossible to suppress pain? Nope!

So you think Lâm Văn Tức suppressed the pain ? That he didn't feel it ?

We just haven't hypothesised that Jesus went into some 7 hour trance while on the cross. The accounts of his crucifixion certainly suggest otherwise - that he was fully concious and in considerable physical pain.

And you think Lâm Văn Tức went into a 'trance' which meant he didn't feel the pain ?

You think people cannot control their pain while conscious ?

Further to this, the claim (at least from people here) isn't that Jesus was the one person who has suffered the most physically painful death in the history of agonising deaths.

I never said it was. I said I didn't understand WHY Jesus 'suffering' for us is supposed to mean something to me. Maybe you don't use it but Christians use it all the time. 'Christ suffered for you', what does that mean ? What is it supposed to mean to me ?

If you said 'Christ drank beer for you' or 'Christ took a nap for you' it would get the same reaction from me.

If someone suffers for me I should worship them ? I should worship the person who suffers the most for me ?

PDN said "That would only be possible if His capacity for pain was infinitely greater than that of ordinary men."

Just why is that important ?

Very simply, my point is, Jesus suffered on the cross. So what ? I suffered this morning from all the alcohol I drank last night.

Its meaningless.

It seems to me that you are so desperate to prove that others have suffered more that you make silly statements like "crucifixion, relatively speaking, is not that bad"! Which leaves me wondering how you know this, and why you think it is at all relevant?

I am not desperate to prove others have suffered more, I made the point that pain and suffering are subjective.

That emotional (and physical) pain or pleasure can be explained by science isn't an issue because nobody has claimed otherwise. So if you want to believe emotions like love, hate and, presumably, overarching concepts like beauty and good can ultimately be reduced to "just a matter of chemicals", I'll say good for you. But even then I'll still be left wondering how this is supposed to make emotional pain irrelevant.

Because you can control/ignore it. People do it every day.

Its irrelevant to any claim of divinity.

As for spiritual pain, it's a difficult one to try even attempt to explain, and I'm not sure I can. I simply don't understand it other than to say it was integral to the cross. But I'll disagree with PDN here and state that non-Christians are very much capable of experiencing it. This is why I think there is so much interest in an explanation beyond the reductionism that you speak of.

So if I get you an example of a happy Muslim/Jew or buddhist that is happy and in the case of the buddhist, can control his pain, emotional and physical, is that proof that they are not in fact suffering from spiritual pain ?

Why whole point is WHY Christians talk about Jesus' suffering at all. It proves nothing, it means nothing.

edit: While we were talking about Lâm Văn Tức I want to show people his last words.

Lâm Văn T&#7913 wrote: »

Before closing my eyes and moving towards the vision of the Buddha, I respectfully plead to President Ngo Dinh Diem to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland eternally. I call the venerables, reverends, members of the sangha and the lay Buddhists to organise in solidarity to make sacrifices to protect Buddhism.

He didn't cry out to the Buddha asking him "Why have you forsaken me". Maybe Buddha took better care of him then God did with Jesus ?

This whole action, for people who don't know, was because of aggressive Christian evangelism which continues to do its utmost to push down all other religions in all of Asia and push its way into everyones life.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I wasn't even talking to you. I'm just discussing Jesus' human nature, not arguing with someone who thinks Jesus' emotions are the result of millions of years of evolution.

Which proves what ? He was human ?

This is what I don't understand. Yes he was crucified, yes he suffered, yes he was recorded in the Bible as been a great loving man.

But so what ? I could give you 100 more examples of people who have acted the same in similar circumstances.

Whats the meaning behind it ?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Probably. The biblical teaching is that our spirits are dead in transgressions and sins and do not come alive until we are in Christ. So you lack the capacity to appreciate spiritual truth.

Which makes claims of spiritual suffering completely irrelevant.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The writings of the early Church Fathers state repeatedly that Christ suffered spiritually. In fact, some of the Church Fathers (eg Origen and Gregory of Nyassa) went further and argued that hell would similarly consist of spiritual rather than physical pain.

I didn't say they said he didn't suffer spiritually, I said they emphasized the physical suffering. Crown of thorns, whipping etc

And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why you keep falling foul of the moderators on this forum. You don't understand something, but you still want to argue against it. You think this forum should provide people like you with a platform to argues against stuff you don't understand, rather than a place where people can discuss and learn.

Because I WANT to understand it.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

This whole action, for people who don't know, was because of aggressive Christian evangelism which continues to do its utmost to push down all other religions in all of Asia and push its way into everyones life.

That is patently dishonest.

This guy committed suicide because the President of South Vietnam of the day was a Roman Catholic, and as such he was perpetuating the privileged position that Roman Catholicism had enjoyed under French colonialism.

You have, monosharp, in previous threads in this forum, made loud claims about how aggressive evangelicals are in some parts of Asia (and, in contrast, how reasonable Roman Catholicism is). Now you are dishonestly trying to link this sad person's suicide 46 years ago with "aggressive Christian evangelism" today.

I am heartily sick of such dishonesty and trolling. If you cannot discuss Christian issues in this forum without resorting to such antics then you will be banned. Please consider this as your final warning.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

That is patently dishonest.

This guy committed suicide because the President of South Vietnam of the day was a Roman Catholic, and as such he was perpetuating the privileged position that Roman Catholicism had enjoyed under French colonialism.

Ok I did actually make a mistake but you are diluting that to a ridiculous degree.

'Privileged position', sounds almost OK when you put it like that.

The president and government made Buddhists (and anyone else of another religion) third class citizens.

wikipedia wrote:

In a country where surveys of the religious composition at the time estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent,[5][6][7][8] President Ngô Đình Diệm was a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, and pursued policies widely regarded by historians as biased. Specifically, the government was regarded as favoring Roman Catholics for public service and military promotions, as well as in the allocation of land, business arrangements and tax concessions.[9] Diệm once told a high-ranking officer, forgetting that he was a Buddhist, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted."[10] Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam converted to Roman Catholicism in the belief that their military prospects depended on it.[10] Additionally, the distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias saw weapons only given to Roman Catholics, with some Buddhists in the army being denied promotion if they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism.[11] Some Roman Catholic priests ran their own private armies,[12] and there were forced conversions and looting, shelling and demolition of pagodas in some areas, to which the government turned a blind eye.[13] Some Buddhist villages converted en masse to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diệm's regime.[14] The "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French, which required official permission to be obtained by those wishing to conduct public Buddhist activities, was not repealed by Diệm.[15] Roman Catholics were also de facto exempt from the corvée labor that the government obliged all citizens to perform, and U.S. aid was disproportionately distributed to Roman Catholic majority villages by Diệm's regime.[16] The Roman Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country and enjoyed special exemptions in property acquisition, and land owned by the Roman Catholic Church was exempt from land reform.[17] The white and gold Vatican flag was regularly flown at all major public events in South Vietnam,[18] and Diệm dedicated his country to the Virgin Mary in 1959.[16]

Buddhist discontent erupted following a ban in early May on flying the Buddhist flag on Vesak, the birthday of Gautama Buddha. Just days before, Roman Catholics had been allowed to fly the Vatican flag at a celebration for Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc of Hue, Diệm's brother. A large crowd of Buddhists protested against the ban, defying the government by flying Buddhist flags on Vesak and marching on the government broadcasting station. Government forces fired into the crowd of protesters, killing nine people. Diem's refusal to take responsibility—he blamed the Vietcong for the deaths—led to further Buddhist protests and calls for religious equality.[19] As Diệm remained unwilling to comply with Buddhist demands, the frequency and size of the protests increased.

You have, monosharp, in previous threads in this forum, made loud claims about how aggressive evangelicals are in some parts of Asia (and, in contrast, how reasonable Roman Catholicism is). Now you are dishonestly trying to link this sad person's suicide 46 years ago with "aggressive Christian evangelism" today.

PDN I think you know me well enough to know I would never lie about something like that because I know one google will correct it and I know you would have known of this situation already because of your Asian travels.

I apologize, I honestly remembered it incorrectly. You were right, it was Roman Catholicism which was being pushed on the people.

I am heartily sick of such dishonesty and trolling. If you cannot discuss Christian issues in this forum without resorting to such antics then you will be banned. Please consider this as your final warning.

Oh come on, you are not actually giving me a warning for that ?
What is this warning for ?

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

Which proves what ? He was human ?

This is what I don't understand. Yes he was crucified, yes he suffered, yes he was recorded in the Bible as been a great loving man.

But so what ? I could give you 100 more examples of people who have acted the same in similar circumstances.

Whats the meaning behind it ?

Personally, I don't dwell specifically on the suffering of Christ. To me, His greatest impact was being "the overcomer" of sin. Christ suceeded where Adam failed. Christ showed that a Spirit-filled man can follow God and withstand the attacks of Satan. He showed that while a sinful man cannot be victorious, a man born again and empowered by the Spirit of God, can be.

He became the bridge between fallen man and a Holy God. His resurrection was more important than His crucifixion. Christ overcame death. He basically showed us what we can do as fleshly beings, and what we can expect out of this life and the afterlife. His entire life and death are the template for the reconciled Spirit-born man. Because of Christ, I have hope, and the means to overcome the inevitable death of my sinful flesh. Because of Christ, I know what type of life I should live, and the relationship God expects me to have with Him and my fellow brothers and sisters on Earth. Just as God is a Spirit of love, Jesus Christ was a man of love. I think of it like "if love became a being of flesh." He lived a life of pure love. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

Personally, I don't dwell specifically on the suffering of Christ. To me, His greatest impact was being "the overcomer" of sin. Christ suceeded where Adam failed. Christ showed that a Spirit-filled man can follow God and withstand the attacks of Satan. He showed that while a sinful man cannot be victorious, a man born again and empowered by the Spirit of God, can be.

And therein lies my biggest problem with Christianity.

What Jesus did was frankly not that impressive. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is a great man, he does great things and there are great lessons to be learned from his actions but so was Buddha, so was many other people. I'd actually consider Buddha's teachings/examples to be 'better' (subjective I know) then Jesus'.

Your telling me that Jesus' greatest impact was acting good when I can think of hundreds of other examples of people like this.

I'm not trying to be rude here but why is that worthy of worship ?

He became the bridge between fallen man and a Holy God.

How/Why ?

His resurrection was more important than His crucifixion.

But even if the resurrection was true, I still don't see why this is an act of a divine being.

Because of Christ, I have hope, and the means to overcome the inevitable death of my sinful flesh.

How/Why ?

Because of Christ, I know what type of life I should live, and the relationship God expects me to have with Him and my fellow brothers and sisters on Earth.

But people who follow the Buddha or Allah or X can live just as good a life as any Christian.

Just as God is a Spirit of love, Jesus Christ was a man of love. I think of it like "if love became a being of flesh." He lived a life of pure love. He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.

Yes but what does that mean ?

Jecus Christ was a man of love. The Buddha was a man of love.

chozometroid

monosharp wrote: »

And therein lies my biggest problem with Christianity.

What Jesus did was frankly not that impressive. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is a great man, he does great things and there are great lessons to be learned from his actions but so was Buddha, so was many other people. I'd actually consider Buddha's teachings/examples to be 'better' (subjective I know) then Jesus'.

Your telling me that Jesus' greatest impact was acting good when I can think of hundreds of other examples of people like this.

I'm not trying to be rude here but why is that worthy of worship ?

I don't really care what impresses you. The fact is that the God of the universe became a man and gave us a new life.

How/Why ?

Jesus reconciled man with God by removing the barrier of sin and the fallen condition of man. Jesus died to pay the price of sin, and allowed us to share a bit of His holy nature, thereby bringing us into a relationship with God. Only a Spirit-born man who has cast away his previous self will accept God as God and allow God to change his nature and conform to the perfect nature of Christ. Only a Spirit-born man will see that God's way is the best way, and our own selfish desires only result in sin and death. Jesus makes God approachable. Only through Him are we able to walk with God.

Obviously if you don't believe in the Christian God or the resurrection of Christ, this means nothing to you. You're only trolling.

But even if the resurrection was true, I still don't see why this is an act of a divine being.

Ok.

How/Why ?

I have hope because Jesus showed that we can be victorious over sin. Because of the Holy Spirit, I can walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh. God empowers us to do the things we could not otherwise do. Instead of me dying in this body of flesh and sin, I can be made new, and be raised incorruptible to live with my Lord and Savior. All I must do is accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation and be transformed into a man that loves God and accepts His authority as my Creator. I will follow Him all the days of my life.

But people who follow the Buddha or Allah or X can live just as good a life as any Christian.

Are you God? Don't claim to know what type of lives people really live.

Yes but what does that mean ?

Jecus Christ was a man of love. The Buddha was a man of love.

You purposely miss my point? I didn't just say Jesus was a man of love. Just as God is love, Jesus is the physical equivalent. There is none like Him.
Buddha was a great man, but he cannot save anyone. Only Christ has the power to save. Jesus shed His blood for our sins. Whether or not you think this is impressive is between you and God.

Think less about how "impressive" Jesus' suffering and death was, and more about the "unmerited favor" you have been given. It's up to you if you accept this gift from God. Perhaps you are too proud? The choice is yours, and you can't complain about that, can you?

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

I have already shown you several examples of why physical and emotional pain is irrelevant. Do I need to repeat them ?

Lâm Văn Tức sat down on the street, had petrol poured over him and then set on fire. He sat perfectly still and perfectly silent for 10 minutes while his body burned away before falling over dead.

Irrelevant! Dear Lord. What an appalling thing to say. There are no parallels with Lâm Văn Tức - certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - because we aren't claiming that it is impossible to suppress pain. Why can't you grasp this? However - and this is very important, monosharp - we aren't suggesting that Jesus went into a 7-hour trance whilst being crucified - not to mention the scourging that went on before this. Reading the Gospel accounts one would have to conclude that deep meditation into a state of irrelevance certainly wasn't the case. Indeed, it isn't a practice that is often associate with Christianity.

Beside, you have absolutely no idea how much pain this Buddhist monk suffered during or even prior to his self-immolation, so it is pointless to hold him up as an example of the irrelevance of pain. Indeed, it is also true to say that you have no idea at what stage he died during his self-immolation - only that his body toppled over after 10 minutes, where upon it was determined that he was dead.

But if you still think that pain is irrelevant, that it has no value, I'm sure that next time you hit your finger with a hammer you will slip serenely into contemplation of the lilies. All pain is dew evaporating in the morning, eh!

monosharp wrote: »

Your purposely moving the argument, I made parallels with suffering and pain, not with death.

I'm not shifting the argument. I'm attempting to highlight that you cant compare the individuals involved. Again, there is no suggestion that Jesus went into a trance, nor are their manners of death comparable - for obvious reasons crucifixion is not the same as self-immolation.

monosharp wrote: »

So you think Lâm Văn Tức suppressed the pain ? That he didn't feel it ?

I would imagine that he felt something before his death, and I'm quite sure that prior to his death, the process of reaching the decision to die cause him great conflict and emotional and physical suffering. Besides, I seem to remember that pain is irrelevant, right?

monosharp wrote: »

And you think Lâm Văn Tức went into a 'trance' which meant he didn't feel the pain ? You think people cannot control their pain while conscious ?

Did you read anything I said? I haven't claimed that people can't control pain. I just so happen not to be of the opinion that this somehow makes pain irrelevant. I also (and this this the 3rd time I'll have repeated it on this post) don't see the relevance to Jesus on the cross. Maybe you should read the accounts of his death if you haven't already.

monosharp wrote: »

I never said it was. I said I didn't understand WHY Jesus 'suffering' for us is supposed to mean something to me. Maybe you don't use it but Christians use it all the time. 'Christ suffered for you', what does that mean ? What is it supposed to mean to me ?

Why don't you think about it! I'll even give you a helping had. I'm not a Christian because a chap called Jesus died a particularly nasty death. I'm a Christian because of his resurrection and what this means for the for you, me and the entire cosmos. Please read the blog I linked to below for a little more on this.

monosharp wrote: »

If someone suffers for me I should worship them ? I should worship the person who suffers the most for me ?

If someone suffered for you I would hope that you would at least honour them. However, I just can't see how you think that this is the point of the cross. A Christian worships Christ because he is God. Further to this, the point of the cross and the resurrection is atonement and that it is the moment in time and space where God conquered death and the work of new creation finally began. If you want to read about this from a personal perspective, have a look at this short blog entry entitled Death, Thou Shalt Die. It's a eulogy from a son about his recently deceased father, and it briefly (but poetically) expands on the Christian hope for him - and all of us - in Christ.

monosharp wrote: »

This whole action, for people who don't know, was because of aggreessive Christian evangelism which continues to do its utmost to push down all other religions in all of Asia and push its way into everyones life.

I'm really, really growing tired of this anti-Christian drum you keep beating. Whether it's a complaint about what rules those Christians make you follow for going to their colleges or whatever, it's all so tedious reading your bitter rants. It is actually counter-productive approaching us in the manner you do.

As it stands, your opinions are set in stone, and I believe you have no intention of changing them. I see no further reason in trying to explain something you are determined not to even attempt to understand. And his is why I'm quite sure that you wont consider anything written here by me or others beyond what it takes to form your next argument.

lmaopml

I often wonder about the 'cup he had to drink of' that he spoke of so seriously with God the father before he was crucified. What he 'saw' in the cup, that made him speak so serously of it - I think it's pivotal to understanding his suffering... what he 'knew' was part of his sacrifice for our sins...

Did he see the sins of the world and all future and past generations, did he take them all onto himself in that moment, and was it so overwhelming for him at the time as whole man and whole God.......yet, he chose to take the 'cup' and all of those sins on board out of love for us....If he 'saw' everything, and he even knew 1/1000th of man's inhumanity to man, that history has recorded, it was some massive feat....He must have been very very sad to see some things, and equally he must have 'known' that his death and the love that would blossom for him, would make it worthwhile..


I truely believe, if there is a God, that Jesus is the risen son of God.....and he is entirely present ever since he made that sacrifice for us...

There is only one Jesus.

monosharp

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't really care what impresses you. The fact is that the God of the universe became a man and gave us a new life.

So what happened to people born 'before' this happened ?

Jesus reconciled man with God by removing the barrier of sin and the fallen condition of man.

By dying by a very common method of execution ? Why ? How ?

How does Jesus getting executed by the Romans save us from Gods wrath ?

Why are we fallen ? By being persuaded to eat some fruit by one of Gods creatures (snake) put there by God in the first place ?

Jesus died to pay the price of sin, and allowed us to share a bit of His holy nature, thereby bringing us into a relationship with God.

But this is what I don't understand. Why does his dying help us ? Why die ? Dying is so natural and common.

Only a Spirit-born man who has cast away his previous self will accept God as God and allow God to change his nature and conform to the perfect nature of Christ. Only a Spirit-born man will see that God's way is the best way, and our own selfish desires only result in sin and death. Jesus makes God approachable. Only through Him are we able to walk with God.

But this is meaningless, you haven't said anything there. You've just told me what every religion tells us just with a slightly different angle on it.

Obviously if you don't believe in the Christian God or the resurrection of Christ, this means nothing to you. You're only trolling.

I'm not trolling, I have entered into logical discussion here and I do it politely.

I used to be a Catholic and the reason I am no longer is because I couldn't logically understand this faith and I am trying to understand it now.

Are you God? Don't claim to know what type of lives people really live.

You claim to know how Jesus lived because of the Bible. We can pick out any religious text from any other religion and see how the main people lived. Why is it different ?

You purposely miss my point? I didn't just say Jesus was a man of love. Just as God is love, Jesus is the physical equivalent. There is none like Him.
Buddha was a great man, but he cannot save anyone. Only Christ has the power to save. Jesus shed His blood for our sins. Whether or not you think this is impressive is between you and God.

Ok but why did he have to ?

Think less about how "impressive" Jesus' suffering and death was, and more about the "unmerited favor" you have been given. It's up to you if you accept this gift from God. Perhaps you are too proud? The choice is yours, and you can't complain about that, can you?

It was PDN who originally said that Jesus' suffering and therefore his capacity for pain was greater then any ordinary man. I'm asking for proof of this.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Irrelevant! Dear Lord. What an appalling thing to say.

Why ?

There are no parallels with Lâm Văn Tức - certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - because we aren't claiming that it is impossible to suppress pain.

I didn't suggest Jesus or Lâm Văn Tức did suppress the pain.

Why can't you grasp this? However - and this is very important, monosharp - we aren't suggesting that Jesus went into a 7-hour trance whilst being crucified - not to mention the scourging that went on before this.

And neither was I. Why do you think I was ?

Beside, you have absolutely no idea how much pain this Buddhist monk suffered during or even prior to his self-immolation, so it is pointless to hold him up as an example of the irrelevance of pain.

And you have no idea how much Jesus went through. Which is my whole point.

Indeed, it is also true to say that you have no idea at what stage he died during his self-immolation - only that his body toppled over after 10 minutes, where upon it was determined that he was dead.

Wells lets agree that 2 minutes of burning alive would be unpleasant shall we ?

But if you still think that pain is irrelevant, that it has no value, I'm sure that next time you hit your finger with a hammer you will slip serenely into contemplation of the lilies. All pain is dew evaporating in the morning, eh!

Alas, I don't possess the training necessary :pac:

I'm not shifting the argument. I'm attempting to highlight that you cant compare the individuals involved. Again, there is no suggestion that Jesus went into a trance, nor are their manners of death comparable - for obvious reasons crucifixion is not the same as self-immolation.

I am not comparing their methods of death, I am using Lâm Văn Tức as an example of how physical pain can be controlled and ultimately ignored. (Not suppressed as you keep trying to suggest)

I would imagine that he felt something before his death, and I'm quite sure that prior to his death, the process of reaching the decision to die cause him great conflict and emotional and physical suffering. Besides, I seem to remember that pain is irrelevant, right?

Irrelevant for some reasons e.g > claims of divinity.

Did you read anything I said? I haven't claimed that people can't control pain. I just so happen not to be of the opinion that this somehow makes pain irrelevant. I also (and this this the 3rd time I'll have repeated it on this post) don't see the relevance to Jesus on the cross. Maybe you should read the accounts of his death if you haven't already.

My personal interest is Roman history, I know more about crucifixion then you do.

Why don't you think about it! I'll even give you a helping had. I'm not a Christian because a chap called Jesus died a particularly nasty death. I'm a Christian because of his resurrection and what this means for the for you, me and the entire cosmos. Please read the blog I linked to below for a little more on this.

Ok I will thanks.

If someone suffered for you I would hope that you would at least honour them. However, I just can't see how you think that this is the point of the cross. A Christian worships Christ because he is God. Further to this, the point of the cross and the resurrection is atonement and that it is the moment in time and space where God conquered death and the work of new creation finally began.

Of course I would honour them.

But I don't understand WHY the crucifixion and resurrection is atonement. What if scientists develop some new drug/technique that can reanimate a dead person after 3 days (which is not as completely unlikely as you'd think)

What does this mean ? Is this divine ?

If you want to read about this from a personal perspective, have a look at this short blog entry entitled Death, Thou Shalt Die. It's a eulogy from a son about his recently deceased father, and it briefly (but poetically) expands on the Christian hope for him - and all of us - in Christ.

Ok.

I'm really, really growing tired of this anti-Christian drum you keep beating. Whether it's a complaint about what rules those Christians make you follow for going to their colleges or whatever, it's all so tedious reading your bitter rants. It is actually counter-productive approaching us in the manner you do.

Fanny, I know that yourself and PDN and the majority of the people here are good honest people most of the time. I am not trying to infer you guys are the same as these people.

What I am trying to show is my disgust at the way SOME Christians act and more importantly, they do this with little or no condemnation from the good Christians.

Your right though, I am very sick and tired of the way these people act, especially in my new country. I honestly believe if you and PDN actually experienced the situation here for yourselves you would agree with me, at least partly.

The situation here and in most of Asia is disgusting.

Heres one example I came across lately and you just tell me if you think this is right or wrong.

My wife was coming home the other day and a guy tried to talk to her to get her to go to his church. My wife told him no thanks and after he kept trying she told him she was Buddhist (shes not but it usually makes them go away). So again, nice and politely he told her "Ah thats OK. I was a Buddhist too because of my family but my pastor told me that its a mental* problem and now I don't associate with them anymore."

* Mental -> I don't know if this means the same as in English but its similar.

So basically he has left his family (parents/siblings) and doesn't associate with them because they are Buddhist.

Now before you answer, I KNOW this is not the norm, I KNOW this is not the christian message or faith. I KNOW this is a small minority, I am not trying to label you all with this example.

So what do you think ?

As it stands, your opinions are set in stone, and I believe you have no intention of changing them.

What opinions ? That there are lunatics here waving crosses in Christianitys name but what they do is more akin to a cult then a mainstream religion ?

me_right_one

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.

This thread is gone a country mile off topic!

OP, to simplify: Jesus was the human form of supernatural God. Jesus was only a man, and he felt pain the same as we do. When he rose people from the dead, it was supernatural God who did so through Jesus, ie at Jesus' request.

So Jesus couldn't just "Switch off" pain. He indeed wondered why supernatural God wouldn't help him on the cross, "My god, why have you forsaken me?".

And as was said before in the thread, Jesus (man) had to suffer death by cruel and unusual means, supernatural God (the father) felt the pain of "I created Earth, and these little fcukers decided to execute the mortal me! GRRRR!!!", and psychological / emotional / soulfull, and kinda supernatural aswell God (the holy spirit) felt the emotional sadness, anger, fear, hurt, of Jesus, and loss of a child of supernatural God.

This was all part of a "deal" to get as many people as possible into heaven. God made people, people gave him the finger and sided with the devil, and God said, "Well eventhough yiz are spoiled brats and I shouldnt be doin' this, I'll pay for yizzer sins's and get yiz all into heaven, cos thats just the kinda nice fella I am". So he paid for our evil deviations by sacrificing himself in his human form. Sh1t, but nescessary.

Eventually, judgement day will come around. Those who appreciate the sacrifice God made, apart from owing him a huge gratitude for giving us life in the first place, and apologise for any times we gave him the finger and sucked the devils c0ck, he will send to purgatory to pay for our sins personally. But then you get into heaven. Those who refuse to appreciate Gods deadliness, or continue to give him the fingers by not believing in him, will go to hell - simple as.