Suffering on the cross

Safehands

The story of Jesus on the cross has always intrigued me. Having rough nails driven through the wrists or palms would shatter bones. Having more nails driven through a person's feet would be equally destructive of bones flesh and ligaments. It must have been excruciatingly painful. But Jesus was God. He could raise people from the dead. He could mend blindness, broken limbs and any other ailment he chose to. So is it not possible that he was able to switch off the pain. He would have had the power to do anything with his body, so driving nails into his hands would not necessarily cause him the same pain as it would to a normal human being.

thehouses

Look up Sabellianism, your idea is similar in a way.

Manach

My off the cuff understanding, that the suffering on the cross was not only the physical and spiritual suffering by Jesus alone - but an action that took on board that of past, current and future humanity.

martinedwards

he had the power to jump down off the cross and land on the ground with all the wounds fully healed, but he chose not to as a sacrifice to atone for OUR sins.

the Suffering Christ is a RC theology. I've never heard it preached in a Protestant church that he suffered all OUR punishment, rather that he suffered because of our need for punishment if that differentiation makes sense?

still, I've heard it preached that this is why RC churches have Christ still on the cross in their imagery, Christ is suffering on the cross for our sins..... whereas Prod churches have the empty cross to signify the emphasis on the risen Christ (which of course the RC church believes too, before someone yells at me!!)

Safehands

martinedwards wrote: »

he had the power to jump down off the cross and land on the ground with all the wounds fully healed, but he chose not to as a sacrifice to atone for OUR sins.

If he was human, with all these powers, he wasn't a normal human. A natural human reaction would be to turn off the pain, if possible. How do we know he didn't? I never read any accounts of his expression of pain. Anybody who had those dreadful things done to them would scream in pain, a normal reaction. Any depiction I have every seen showed a man with a serene look on his face as those nails were been driven in. That suggests he was not actually feeling the pain.

martinedwards

to be fair those were probably artist's impressions......

cameras hadn't been invented

Safehands

martinedwards wrote: »

to be fair those were probably artist's impressions......cameras hadn't been invented

Of course. He didn't have blond hair either! But did he switch off the pain, do we know? If he spoke at all on the cross, other than expressing extreme pain, then we can assume he was acting in a supernatural way. No human would be capable of discussion in those circumstances.

martinedwards

Any descriptions I've read of Crucifixion are horrifying.

bear in mind that it was pretty common in those days..... Nero had a party once and had an avenue of crucified Christians lining the way, and just so that the guests could see the way, he had them doused in pitch and set alight.

and the REASON that the legs were broken was to speed up the death so that no-one would be still alive on the crosses into the Sabbath, because people could survive for several days. Jesus's side was pierced by the spear because he was clearly already dead, and this was surprising to the soldiers on duty.

Was he pain free on the cross?

far from it.

was he having conversations?

hardly.

"Pete, look after my mum" was the height of it.....

but then there was the other two crucified along with him.....

they were chatting away, with one insulting Jesus, and the other one saying shut up, leave him alone. And we don't apportion any supernatural powers to THEM, do we?

SoulandForm

Very interesting question-my understanding is that Christ had not a normal fallen body like we have but the type of unfallen glorified body that Adam and Eve had before the fall; but He willed to assume the physical conditions of our fallen ones. The Apostles saw His body as it actually was on Mount Tabor. Coming to this realization really deepened my appreciation of Christ's work and gave me a tiny peek at how hellish and un-natural life in this sick and fallen world must have been for Him.

Safehands wrote: »

The story of Jesus on the cross has always intrigued me. Having rough nails driven through the wrists or palms would shatter bones. Having more nails driven through a person's feet would be equally destructive of bones flesh and ligaments. It must have been excruciatingly painful. But Jesus was God. He could raise people from the dead. He could mend blindness, broken limbs and any other ailment he chose to. So is it not possible that he was able to switch off the pain. He would have had the power to do anything with his body, so driving nails into his hands would not necessarily cause him the same pain as it would to a normal human being.

SoulandForm

Calvin had the weird idea that Christ's soul when it went to hell actually suffered there all the punishment due to the elect which thankfully is not something that most Christians hold.

In many (admittedly on the Anglo-Catholic side of things) Anglican parishes in England and Wales you will find Crucifixs and you see them in nearly Lutheran Churches in Europe (the USA is kind of different in this regard).

Most of the really amazing music to do with Christ's sufferings was made by Lutherans.

Than again a lot of post-modern day RCs are far from fond of such imagery.

I dont think its a clear cut as you suggest.

You can believe in Justification by Faith and Salvation by Grace alone and still have Crucifixs. Infact I find the rarity of them in Irish Protestantism a bit wrong.

martinedwards wrote: »

he had the power to jump down off the cross and land on the ground with all the wounds fully healed, but he chose not to as a sacrifice to atone for OUR sins.

the Suffering Christ is a RC theology. I've never heard it preached in a Protestant church that he suffered all OUR punishment, rather that he suffered because of our need for punishment if that differentiation makes sense?

still, I've heard it preached that this is why RC churches have Christ still on the cross in their imagery, Christ is suffering on the cross for our sins..... whereas Prod churches have the empty cross to signify the emphasis on the risen Christ (which of course the RC church believes too, before someone yells at me!!)

Safehands

SoulandForm wrote: »

Very interesting question-my understanding is that Christ had not a normal fallen body like we have but the type of unfallen glorified body that Adam and Eve had before the fall; but He willed to assume the physical conditions of our fallen ones. The Apostles saw His body as it actually was on Mount Tabor. Coming to this realization really deepened my appreciation of Christ's work and gave me a tiny peek at how hellish and un-natural life in this sick and fallen world must have been for Him.

Where does that information come from? How do we know he willed this body? The pain suffered must have been so extreme that we could not really imagine it. I broke my leg a couple of times and the pain was intolerable. I know therefore that any man with normal feelings could not have the weight of his body on feet and hands with broken bones and have any rational thought, let alone talk to people on the crosses beside him. In fact, that level of pain would most likely, cause a person to pass out. I know that these are very basic, non theological opinions, but that does not make them any less valid.

SoulandForm

Well He didnt have original sin did He?

The nature of His body flows naturally from that.

I read it first in a book by Vladimir Lossky- an important Russian theologian.

Safehands wrote: »

Where does that information come from? How do we know he willed this body? The pain suffered must have been so extreme that we could not really imagine it. I broke my leg a couple of times and the pain was intolerable. I know therefore that any man with normal feelings could not have the weight of his body on feet and hands with broken bones and have any rational thought, let alone talk to people on the crosses beside him. In fact, that level of pain would most likely, cause a person to pass out. I know that these are very basic, non theological opinions, but that does not make them any less valid.

Safehands

SoulandForm wrote: »

Well He didnt have original sin did He?

The nature of His body flows naturally from that.

So he didn't feel the pain a normal man would have felt! that is all I am saying.

SoulandForm

Safehands wrote: »

So he didn't feel the pain a normal man would have felt! that is all I am saying.

He did and more so not naturally but because He personally willed it.

Safehands

SoulandForm wrote: »

He did and more so not naturally but because He personally willed it.

Hang on a bit. If he could will himself to feel more pain, he could just as easily have willed himself to feel no pain. The evidence of him chatting to others suggests that he was not really in extreme pain. There is no evidence for your synopsis I'm afraid.

SoulandForm

Safehands wrote: »

Hang on a bit. If he could will himself to feel more pain, he could just as easily have willed himself to feel no pain. The evidence of him chatting to others suggests that he was not really in extreme pain. There is no evidence for your synopsis I'm afraid.

Oh He felt the pain and could chat to other because as I said He willed to feel the pain and willed to chat to others- and also proclaim some Psalms.

Safehands

SoulandForm wrote: »

Oh He felt the pain and could chat to other because as I said He willed to feel the pain and willed to chat to others- and also proclaim some Psalms.

So he was acting as God, not man. Where is that coming from?

martinedwards

Safehands wrote: »

The evidence of him chatting to others suggests that he was not really in extreme pain.

the others were chatting.

as I believe I mentioned.

Balaclava1991

Since Jesus was God why did he have to suffer? Was he sacrificing himself to himself? What for? Since he was all powerful couldn't he just wipe away sin without having to go through the needless bother of being born, living for 33 years on earth, then dying a hideous death? Since Revelation preaches that at the end of the world bowls of wrath will be poured out, seals will be broken and trumpets will blow unleashing plagues on the earth and Jesus will personally lead his army into battle against Satan why go through the whole bother of the crucifixion then?
Until the age of exploration most of the world did not know about Jesus which means that generations and generations of millions of people lived and died never hearing of the crucifixion.
Surely if Jesus had been Chinese his sacrifice would have made a bigger impact on history and saved more souls?
When you consider that the Earth might not be the only planet with intelligent life and that human radio broadcasts have at a minimum only reached about 100 light years into space that means that the potentially infinite trillions of individuals on infinite billions of planets in our galaxy and universe have not heard nor will ever heard about the ONLY Son of God who lived between 1 AD and 33AD in ancient Israel on Planet.
So not only did Jesus endure appalling suffering when a far easier alternative solution to defeating evil was available - Satan can simply disappear instantly if God wills it - he also has been very poor about choosing an efficient method of letting humanity and the wider universe knowing about him and having a possibility of saving themselves.

Safehands

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Since Jesus was God why did he have to suffer? Was he sacrificing himself to himself? What for? Since he was all powerful couldn't he just wipe away sin without having to go through the needless bother of being born, living for 33 years on earth, then dying a hideous death?

There is an awful lot of nonsense talked about this. It is a nice thought that Jesus died for our sins, but did it make much difference? Did man sin less because Jesus did that? I think that in fact man has sinned a lot more, unfortunately, because of religion. Jesus, being God, must have known that man was going to do really nasty things in his name. So why did he go ahead and still die if it was in the name of wiping out sin? It didn't really work did it?

Lantus

A few posters have used the word sacrifice when they refer to the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus. This has always puzzled me as Jesus came back to life in perfect health a few days later and then ascended into heaven. Where was the sacrifice?

SoulandForm

Lantus wrote: »

A few posters have used the word sacrifice when they refer to the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus. This has always puzzled me as Jesus came back to life in perfect health a few days later and then ascended into heaven. Where was the sacrifice?

His whole life on earth was a Sacrifice.

Safehands

SoulandForm wrote: »

His whole life on earth was a Sacrifice.

How can anybody be sacrificing anything unless they lose something. If I sacrifice my life, I die. I don't come back! If I know I am going to be ok in three days time then it really isn't so much a sacrifice as a piece of showmanship really. If I'm going to be executed in a painful way, but the pain can be turned off, it isn't quite as bad, is it?

Manach

In spite of the high level of subjective proof being demanded, if you consider the historical records (in items called books), crucifixation was considered one the more darker of Roman punishments and added that to the fact that Jesus passed through the hands of some of viler dregs of the Roman legions who were posted to Jerusalem would not leave many people with the ability to chat.

Lantus

SoulandForm wrote: »

His whole life on earth was a Sacrifice.

Possibly, but it is hard to imagine an immortal being seeing it that way. The time span spent as a person would be nothing but a millisecond of time compared to the eternity of your overall existence. Again he knew almost certainly without any doubt that once done he would return to an immortal state of being afterwards. He may of endured suffering but as he ultimately lost nothing then nothing was sacrificed. How do others see it?

Safehands

Manach wrote: »

In spite of the high level of subjective proof being demanded, if you consider the historical records (in items called books), crucifixation was considered one the more darker of Roman punishments and added that to the fact that Jesus passed through the hands of some of viler dregs of the Roman legions who were posted to Jerusalem would not leave many people with the ability to chat.

Quite right, but Jesus was also God and as such he did not necessarily suffer on the cross as others did.

martinedwards

you really have a bee in your bonnet about this doncha?:p

Ok Jesus was fully God and fully Human.

we don't know if he turned off the pain (as he could have, being God and all that) but no theologian (protestant or RC) has ever suggested it.

the idea that his talking on the cross proves he was pain free is wrong because the thieves crucified alongside him were talking.

in the OT, sin required a blood sacrifice.

read the OT, the temple was like an abattoir, with blood being sprinkled over the people...... (yuk)

Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. just like the lambs and bulls used for sacrifice, "without defect"... in his case without sin.

his blood had to be spilled in (lethal) sacrifice

yes, he "got better" but the death occurred so the sacrifice stands.

Safehands

martinedwards wrote: »

you really have a bee in your bonnet about this doncha?

Do you not think its an important issue?

martinedwards

sorry, I was expanding the post when you replied. I think its a VERY important issue, but you don't seem to be reading my responses.......

Safehands

martinedwards wrote: »

you really have a bee in your bonnet about this doncha?:p

Ok Jesus was fully God and fully Human.

we don't know if he turned off the pain (as he could have, being God and all that) but no theologian (protestant or RC) has ever suggested it.

the idea that his talking on the cross proves he was pain free is wrong because the thieves crucified alongside him were talking.

in the OT, sin required a blood sacrifice.

read the OT, the temple was like an abattoir, with blood being sprinkled over the people...... (yuk)

Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. just like the lambs and bulls used for sacrifice, "without defect"... in his case without sin.

his blood had to be spilled in (lethal) sacrifice

yes, he "got better" but the death occurred so the sacrifice stands.

It seems to me that the whole thing is really metaphorical, like a lot of the events in his life.
We are told he suffered, and if he was a mere man that would be true in spades, but he was much more than a mere human.
We are told he rose from the dead. But when he rose his injuries were healed and therefore he didn't rise as a man. He rose as a deity. If that is true, he didn't really "come back" from the dead. He came back as some form of supernatural entity, a very good one, no doubt, but not as man. Therefore can it be truly stated that Jesus the man, died and rose again? I don't think so.

shamreez

I guess you can give a call to Mel Gibson and ask the question coz the other option (asking the church) might only give you their latest version.