nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

duncli1628

Safehands wrote: »

I'd say it's just an imbellishment to a nice story, not actually true though.

Sorry, but it would be dangerous to pick certain parts of the Bible to be true and discard what we we cannot rationalise to be untrue. As Christians we must accept the Bible as His word or else it's just another religion!

Safehands

duncli1628 wrote: »

Sorry, but it would be dangerous to pick certain parts of the Bible to be true and discard what we we cannot rationalise to be untrue. As Christians we must accept the Bible as His word or else it's just another religion!

Even if we know it cannot be true?

RGDATA!

jemlad wrote: »

What better way to exact perfect judgement on the world than to experience all the things man experiences.

Did Jesus ever really experience true doubt like man experiences though? Crucifixion would be torture, but if I knew *for certain* eternal life awaited at the end of it I think I could endure it as well as could be expected.

Peregrinus

This all has to be speculative, of course, since unless we actually experience what it is to be fully human and fully divine we really can’t say what it is like.

But the mainstream Christian understanding, as articulated first by Paul, is that Jesus was “a man like us in all things but sin”, and that in becoming human he “emptied himself”. This is generally understood to mean that he put aside, so to speak, his divine characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and so forth, and fully shared in human experience, which would have included doubt, fear, shame, humiliation, grief and terror.

And this is pretty much the picture painted in the gospels. Early on we are told that the young Jesus “grew in stature and wisdom”, meaning he wasn’t fully wise to begin with. And we see him experiencing fear (the agony in the garden) and grief (the death of Lazarus) and rejection (repeatedly). We also see him withdrawing for reflection (the 40 days in the wilderness) implying that he has stuff he needs to think about (which you don’t, if you’re already perfectly wise) and stuff he needs to discern (which you don’t, if you’re already all-knowing).

So the consistent picture is of a Jesus who is very human, and who is characterised by human weaknesses and limitations.

The gospels record him prophesying his own resurrection, of course, but if you think about it we have no way of knowing what he understood by that. We know how it all panned out – we can turn to the last page in the book – but we cannot impute that knowledge to him. These prophecies happen fairly late on into his public ministry, and the picture that seems to emerge – I reckon, anyway – is that they come at a time when he has made up his mind to go back to Jerusalem, he knows that the Romans and/or the Temple authorities will have him killed, he understands that the Father is calling him to accept and embrace that, and he has faith that, somehow, in the Father it will be all right; the Father’s will is for him not to avoid this death but to transcend it – that “though he be destroyed, yet he will live”. But we have no reason to think that that faith was any more easily arrived at for him than it would be for any of us. And I think we’re mistaken if we see that faith as something like a confident knowledge of what would happen; rather it’s a committed trust in the providence of the Father.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

This all has to be speculative, of course, since unless we actually experience what it is to be fully human and fully divine we really can’t say what it is like.

But the mainstream Christian understanding, as articulated first by Paul, is that Jesus was “a man like us in all things but sin”, and that in becoming human he “emptied himself”. This is generally understood to mean that he put aside, so to speak, his divine characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience and so forth, and fully shared in human experience, which would have included doubt, fear, shame, humiliation, grief and terror.

And this is pretty much the picture painted in the gospels. Early on we are told that the young Jesus “grew in stature and wisdom”, meaning he wasn’t fully wise to begin with. And we see him experiencing fear (the agony in the garden) and grief (the death of Lazarus) and rejection (repeatedly). We also see him withdrawing for reflection (the 40 days in the wilderness) implying that he has stuff he needs to think about (which you don’t, if you’re already perfectly wise) and stuff he needs to discern (which you don’t, if you’re already all-knowing).

You present this as if he was an ordinary man. Lets examine some of the feeling he supposedly experienced. He experienced grief when Lazarus died. How did he deal with that? If it were you or me we'd probably cry and embrace his family. Jesus dealt with it by bringing him back to life. An ordinary human reaction? I don't think so. He experienced fear by supposedly talking to his father in the garden. No one heard what he said because they were all asleep so we cannot know what he said. He knew he was going to rise again so were his fears the same as a normal man facing a terrible execution? Absolutely not. If he was a man with supernatural powers, control of life and death, control of illnesses and all the other things he could do, then he could also control his own experience of pain. So in that way he was not the same as a normal man.
Lets face it, it suits the story to claim he was ordinary, but he was not!

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

You present this as if he was an ordinary man. Lets examine some of the feeling he supposedly experienced. He experienced grief when Lazarus died. How did he deal with that? If it were you or me we'd probably cry and embrace his family. Jesus dealt with it by bringing him back to life. An ordinary human reaction? I don't think so. He experienced fear by supposedly talking to his father in the garden. No one heard what he said because they were all asleep so we cannot know what he said. He knew he was going to rise again so were his fears the same as a normal man facing a terrible execution? Absolutely not. If he was a man with supernatural powers, control of life and death, control of illnesses and all the other things he could do, then he could also control his own experience of pain. So in that way he was not the same as a normal man.
Lets face it, it suits the story to claim he was ordinary, but he was not!

And yet Paul insists that in all respects he was an ordinary man - and of course what Paul says is also "part of the story". Are you perhaps reading the story a bit selectively?

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

You present this as if he was an ordinary man. Lets examine some of the feeling he supposedly experienced. He experienced grief when Lazarus died. How did he deal with that? If it were you or me we'd probably cry and embrace his family. Jesus dealt with it by bringing him back to life. An ordinary human reaction? I don't think so. He experienced fear by supposedly talking to his father in the garden. No one heard what he said because they were all asleep so we cannot know what he said. He knew he was going to rise again so were his fears the same as a normal man facing a terrible execution? Absolutely not. If he was a man with supernatural powers, control of life and death, control of illnesses and all the other things he could do, then he could also control his own experience of pain. So in that way he was not the same as a normal man.
Lets face it, it suits the story to claim he was ordinary, but he was not!

That's assuming He was God. Theirs another possibility. Jesus thought he was god. Look at the evidence, the idea comes to him over time he struggles with the implications and needs to steel himself for the consequences it brings.
Now dose this add to the strength of character of the man Jesus?
Another posibility! He was both God and man but was not fully aware of this, He had to fully trust in God to accept it. His suffering was exactly the same as if anyone suffered crucifiction, the only difference being that once death had been completed He was certain of His nature.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

Another posibility! He was both God and man but was not fully aware of this,

That possibility is simply not believable

duncli1628

Safehands wrote: »

That possibility is simply not believable

It's impossible to contain the ocean in a teacup. Instead of trying to fit Jesus who is God into my idea of how He SHOULD be or HOW He did it, I'll accept He did all it for my sake. That's why we are called to have FAITH...Hbr 11:1(faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen). Basically, just because I can't understand how it happened doesn't mean it never happened.

Safehands

duncli1628 wrote: »

It's impossible to contain the ocean in a teacup. Instead of trying to fit Jesus who is God into my idea of how He SHOULD be or HOW He did it, I'll accept He did all it for my sake. That's why we are called to have FAITH...Hbr 11:1(faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen). Basically, just because I can't understand how it happened doesn't mean it never happened.

There is no doubt that faith is a wonderful gift. It involves suspending judgement and believing things that defy logic and the laws of physics. We are asked to believe stories which we know cannot be true and when we point out ambiguities or inaccuracies which cannot possibly be explained we are presented with the nuclear options 'we must have faith' or 'anything is possible with God'. I accept that if Jesus was God he could do anything including turning off the pain of the crucifiction.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

That possibility is simply not believable

Why? It's possible that Jesus became aware of his divine nature in stages, in fact it fits the gospels better than the idea that He knew from the moment of his birth.
And yes it's just as possible that he was a deluded madman, that fits the accounts too. Theirs the whole resurrection thing but we can assume that was a mass delusion by grieving followers who couldn't accept that their messiah was just a fool who died for nothing leaving them with egg on their faces.

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

That possibility is simply not believable

Why not? If you can believe that he was both God and man, it doesn't seem to me too much of a stretch also to believe that, as a man, he did not share in the characteristics of divinity. And as tommy2bad points out, that's certainly how the gospels present it.

tommy2bad

Theirs another possibility, that the suffering of Jesus was not just the suffering of crucifixion. after all he was not the first or last to be crucified. In fact he got off lightly by being dead so fast. The real horror was the separation from God, something we should be equally in fear of but are too limited by our fear of death to fully appreciate.
Try to think of Jesus as being torn apart, rent from his nature and left bereft and alone. "Why have you forsaken me?" is the most telling phrase in the passion story.
This is the death He overcame, not the physical death we all still face.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why? It's possible that Jesus became aware of his divine nature in stages, in fact it fits the gospels better than the idea that He knew from the moment of his birth.
And yes it's just as possible that he was a deluded madman, that fits the accounts too. Theirs the whole resurrection thing but we can assume that was a mass delusion by grieving followers who couldn't accept that their messiah was just a fool who died for nothing leaving them with egg on their faces.

He knew who he was if you read the account of the wedding feast at Cana. He told his mother that his time had not yet come. She knew too. He knew he had these powers. We are told that he also knew that he was going to rise in three days. There is no doubt about it, if you read the accounts and believe them, he knew he was different.
I suspect that it is more likely that he was not actually dead when he was taken down off the cross. His followers took him and treated him his wounds and as soon as he was well enough they moved him.

georgieporgy

Safehands wrote: »

He knew who he was if you read the account of the wedding feast at Cana. He told his mother that his time had not yet come. She knew too. He knew he had these powers. We are told that he also knew that he was going to rise in three days. There is no doubt about it, if you read the accounts and believe them, he knew he was different.
I suspect that it is more likely that he was not actually dead when he was taken down off the cross. His followers took him and treated him his wounds and as soon as he was well enough they moved him.

Are you suggesting then that he didn't die and rise from the dead, even though he knew he would actually die and rise again from the dead?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

He knew who he was if you read the account of the wedding feast at Cana. He told his mother that his time had not yet come. She knew too. He knew he had these powers. We are told that he also knew that he was going to rise in three days. There is no doubt about it, if you read the accounts and believe them, he knew he was different.

The fact that he told he mother that “my time has not yet come” doesn’t prove that he knew himself to be the incarnation of God, Safehands. There’s a big gap between the two.

Similarly, the fact that he prophesied his own resurrection doesn’t mean that he was always aware of it; it’s a conviction that he could have come to over time. Nor, again, does it mean that he knew that he was the incarnation of God.

georgieporgy

Catholics believe that Jesus always knew who he was, both God and Man, even when he was still in his mother's womb.

He was one person with two natures at all times. This is where our faith comes in. Jesus on the other hand did not have faith (or hope); he actually knew and was in communion with the other two divine persons at all times.
So he did not grow in faith. But his human nature did grow in wisdom.
So when he suffered, he suffered in his human nature, and it was not a 'pretend suffering'.

It's all explained nicely in this article http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incaa3.htm

It's about a 10 minute read and deals with the subject pretty clearly I think.

Safehands

georgieporgy wrote: »

Are you suggesting then that he didn't die and rise from the dead, even though he knew he would actually die and rise again from the dead?

If Jesus was God, then there could be no doubt about it, he would have known what was coming down the line for him and he would have been able to live with the pain far easier. Nobody can be sure. We speculate, based on the stories in the bible, about what he felt, what he knew at what age or what he meant in some of his speeches. If he was a man, with special powers or gifts, then he most certainly would have suffered on the cross. But isn't it very believable and much more possible, as speculated in an article I saw recently, to think that he did not actually die on the cross. It has been suggested that he was taken down after three hours or so by his supporters. Isn't it possible that they took him away and treated him. In that scenario, he would not have died and risen from the dead, but he would still have been Jesus Christ. His teachings would still be totally valid. It would remove a lot of speculation about whether he was actually God or not, he was still a very remarkable man. Did he ever claim to be God in an unambiguous way?

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

If Jesus was God, then there could be no doubt about it, he would have known what was coming down the line for him and he would have been able to live with the pain far easier. Nobody can be sure. We speculate, based on the stories in the bible, about what he felt, what he knew at what age or what he meant in some of his speeches. If he was a man, with special powers or gifts, then he most certainly would have suffered on the cross. But isn't it very believable and much more possible, as speculated in an article I saw recently, to think that he did not actually die on the cross. It has been suggested that he was taken down after three hours or so by his supporters. Isn't it possible that they took him away and treated him. In that scenario, he would not have died and risen from the dead, but he would still have been Jesus Christ. His teachings would still be totally valid. It would remove a lot of speculation about whether he was actually God or not, he was still a very remarkable man. Did he ever claim to be God in an unambiguous way?

The problem with that idea is that it has no supporting evidence, it's an argument from silence. Yes it possible but why would they claim that he rose from the dead? Wouldn't this just annoy the people who wanted him gone in the first place. Having people go round saying that you resurrected is a bad idea when your on the lamb. In fact it ended badly for the ones telling this version of events anyway. Why not just keep preaching the message and claiming an injustice had been done to Jesus.? A posthumous pardon campaign would have bee more likely if he had died and stayed dead. Keeping stum would be the best option if the death had been faked!
Unless the whole risen from the dead thing was a borrowed motif that was never meant to be taken literally but that is not what they claimed or stood by even to the point of their own deaths.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem with that idea is that it has no supporting evidence, it's an argument from silence. Yes it possible but why would they claim that he rose from the dead? Wouldn't this just annoy the people who wanted him gone in the first place. Having people go round saying that you resurrected is a bad idea when your on the lamb. In fact it ended badly for the ones telling this version of events anyway. Why not just keep preaching the message and claiming an injustice had been done to Jesus.? A posthumous pardon campaign would have bee more likely if he had died and stayed dead. Keeping stum would be the best option if the death had been faked!
Unless the whole risen from the dead thing was a borrowed motif that was never meant to be taken literally but that is not what they claimed or stood by even to the point of their own deaths.

Evidence is not a word I would bandy about when talking about matters which involve faith. Think about it though. Which is more likely, that he died and was taken down and buried and then he suddenly came back to life, or that he didn't actually die and that his friends looked after him and moved him after three days when he was able to be moved? If they had done that they certainly would keep it quiet. To admit such a conspiracy would have meant certain death for themselves. Plus, the resurrection story is very powerful. It would certainly suit their cause. People in those days were very superstitious, uneducated and gullible. They would most certainly believe that a resurrection had taken place. After all the body was gone, and he did show up sometime later with scars in his hands. Even without his friends saying anything people would draw their own conclusions, that he had died and had come back to life. It gives his teachings more weight.

georgieporgy

Safehands wrote: »

Evidence is not a word I would bandy about when talking about matters which involve faith. Think about it though. Which is more likely, that he died and was taken down and buried and then he suddenly came back to life, or that he didn't actually die and that his friends looked after him and moved him after three days when he was able to be moved? If they had done that they certainly would keep it quiet. To admit such a conspiracy would have meant certain death for themselves. Plus, the resurrection story is very powerful. It would certainly suit their cause. People in those days were very superstitious, uneducated and gullible. They would most certainly believe that a resurrection had taken place. After all the body was gone, and he did show up sometime later with scars in his hands. Even without his friends saying anything people would draw their own conclusions, that he had died and had come back to life. It gives his teachings more weight.

If you spend a little more time on boards.ie you will soon realise that it's the people in our day that are superstitious, uneducated and gullible.

Safehands

georgieporgy wrote: »

If you spend a little more time on boards.ie you will soon realise that it's the people in our day that are superstitious, uneducated and gullible.

Yes, one would think that, reading some posts. Surprisingly, some very well educated, obviously intelligent people believe the strangest things. But faith can give great comfort to people, so unless they want to debate the issues it is not very fair to do so. That's what is so great about boards.ie. Its full of opinionated people who love arguing.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

Evidence is not a word I would bandy about when talking about matters which involve faith.

You mightn't, but the Bible does. Hebrews 11:1 talks of faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

Faith, rather than being some kind of blind hope (the Dawkinsian view), is (biblically speaking) sourced in evidence. It's not evidence of the empirical kind (necessarily) but that in itself doesn't represent a problem since evidence at it's root is merely a description of something which, for one reason or another, gives us confidence that such and such is the case.

Empirical evidence is fine in so far as it goes, but it has no particular calling to sit on the throne of all the classes of evidence which can be.

Think about it though. Which is more likely, that he died and was taken down and buried and then he suddenly came back to life, or that he didn't actually die and that his friends looked after him and moved him after three days when he was able to be moved? If they had done that they certainly would keep it quiet. To admit such a conspiracy would have meant certain death for themselves. Plus, the resurrection story is very powerful. It would certainly suit their cause. People in those days were very superstitious, uneducated and gullible. They would most certainly believe that a resurrection had taken place. After all the body was gone, and he did show up sometime later with scars in his hands. Even without his friends saying anything people would draw their own conclusions, that he had died and had come back to life. It gives his teachings more weight.

It's curious that you chose to accept some aspects of the gospel accounts as true but chose to doubt other aspects.

How is it that you decide which is true and false given that there isn't any way to establish the likelihood of any of it being either true or false?

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's curious that you chose to accept some aspects of the gospel accounts as true but chose to doubt other aspects.

How is it that you decide which is true and false given that there isn't any way to establish the likelihood of any of it being either true or false?

Its quite easy really. For example, I have no problem believing that Jesus Christ lived around 2000 years ago. No problem believing that he preached and showed us a good way to live life.
On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself.

Can you understand that?

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

Its quite easy really. For example, I have no problem believing that Jesus Christ lived around 2000 years ago. No problem believing that he preached and showed us a good way to live life. On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself.

Can you understand that?

There is no evidence that he lived and preached except for that written "a long time later". It seems to me that if you discount some of it you might as well discount all of it. Picking and choosing on the basis of personal incredulity doesn't strike me as an appropriate approach.

Have you any difficulty with the notion of the whole show coming about out of nothing. Do you live your life as one who supposes there to be no meaning to life and whose thoughts have all the value one could expect from a machine produced through goal-less and pointless natural selection?

That's what I've trouble believing: that folk in their heart of hearts actually believe there is no God. Because they don't live their lives as if they believe that in their heart of hearts.

Curiously, the Bible agrees with me saying that all men do know that God exists.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

Its quite easy really. For example, I have no problem believing that Jesus Christ lived around 2000 years ago. No problem believing that he preached and showed us a good way to live life.
On the other hand I have great difficulty believing he was actually God and performed miracles, for which there is no evidence apart from what was written down a long time later. I have great difficulty believing he actually died for three days and then resurrected himself.

Can you understand that?

I can understand that. What confuses me is that you then try to understand this story from modern viewpoint, i.e. you accept the bits that you think could happen and dismiss the bits that you think couldn't happen. Which is fair enough if you left it at that, but you go on to surmise that something else happened, something for which their is no written record or reference to. It's speculation at best.
As an example, their is plenty of reasons to presume that Jesus was married but no record of a marriage so we don't claim it happened. We don't know and the fact that it isn't mentioned tells us something else, that it was not important to His mission.
Wouldn't it make more sense to view the story from the point of view it was written from? then take or leave it.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

Picking and choosing on the basis of personal incredulity doesn't strike me as an appropriate approach.

Not at all, credibility is very important. Having 'blind' faith makes no sense. Questioning the authenticity is vital, if one wants to get to the truth.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you any difficulty with the notion of the whole show coming about out of nothing.

Stephen Hawking doesn't, why should I? Its hard to get my head around it though.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

I can understand that. What confuses me is that you then try to understand this story from modern viewpoint, i.e. you accept the bits that you think could happen and dismiss the bits that you think couldn't happen. Which is fair enough if you left it at that, but you go on to surmise that something else happened, something for which their is no written record or reference to. It's speculation at best.
Wouldn't it make more sense to view the story from the point of view it was written from? then take or leave it.

Fair question, but too simplistic. I don't think we need to believe every word to be influenced by it. To 'leave it' would be to ignore a lot of positives, even if they are not all completely true. A lot of the stories are common to loads of religions, not just Christianity. It seems quite obvious that there was influences from other religions.

tommy2bad

Safehands wrote: »

Fair question, but too simplistic. I don't think we need to believe every word to be influenced by it. To 'leave it' would be to ignore a lot of positives, even if they are not all completely true. A lot of the stories are common to loads of religions, not just Christianity. It seems quite obvious that there was influences from other religions.

Too simplistic?
So you don't read the bible literally, good start.
If they are not true then they are lies so not that positive. I think you are confusing facts with truths.
Well we are all human, a lot of what is beneficial and true for one human will be true for the rest. This isn't that surprising, people think about these things and come up with the same answers.
Er, influence of other religions? like maybe Judaism or Zoroastrianism or other middle eastern religions or Confucius or one of the Hindu religions? I dunno, I think it's more likely that our common humanity inspires most religions, the rest is that wisdom expressed through the cultural influences of the region.
It's one of the reasons I don't like faiths that take a bit of this and a bit of that to come up with some homogeneous religion. Once you separate the religion from it culture the truths become harder to define.

Safehands

tommy2bad wrote: »

simplistic?
So you don't read the bible literally, good start.

One cannot take it literally. To do so would lead to all sorts of problems. There are enough contradictions contained within the bible, to write a substantial book.

tommy2bad wrote: »

If they are not true then they are lies so not that positive. I think you are confusing facts with truths.

Not lies, simple contradictions and poor translations. Remember, the bible has been translated several times from its original form

tommy2bad wrote: »

influence of other religions? like maybe Judaism or Zoroastrianism or other middle eastern religions or Confucius or one of the Hindu religions? I dunno, I think it's more likely that our common humanity inspires most religions, the rest is that wisdom expressed through the cultural influences of the region.

I agree Tommy. Quite a lot of the tale of Jesus has commonality with Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions which were around long before Christianity. Even some of the Greek and Roman Gods performed similar miracles to those attributed to Jesus.