tommy2bad wrote: » Anyway, whats your take on how good is judged, on what basis do we say something is good? Was the suffering on the cross 'good' because it brought salvation or was it 'evil' because it embodied all the evil of the world wrought on the innocent?
tommy2bad wrote: » The nails would be driven through the wrists and easily enough avoid bones. The feet would be nailed through the heels, this was to support the body weight and prolong the death, so would have also avoided bones.
tommy2bad wrote: » As an after thought, I think the pain was not just the physical pain but the sense of abandonment and betrayal, remember that this was God being tortured and killed by his beloved creation and man being abandoned by God. You do kinda need to be able to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, but then again we are talking about a supernatural being so that's par for the course.
Safehands wrote: » Yes but you wen't God, able to turn off pain if you wanted. We are told to believe he was God, as well as man. I accept he was man and that he felt pain. If he actually was God, with all his powers, then it would not have been so bad. I don't believe that you would be able to roughly drive big nails into two hands and two feet without breaking any bones. If, as you say, they did manage to do it without breaking any bones at all, then that is more evidence that he was not behaving or being treated like a normal man, directing the large nails around the miriad of small bones in his limbs, without fracturing any of them.
jemlad wrote: » Yes Jesus suffered excruciating pain on the cross. In Psalm 22 it gives you a bit of an idea of what He was going through. Loads of His bones were dislocated and from personal experience of my kneecap taking a sudden trip around to the side of my leg while playing football I can assure you I've never experienced anything like it! You just lie there and scream until an ambulance arrives!
martinedwards wrote: » 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?
tommy2bad wrote: » I was about to post this in response to your question SoulandForm. I think Calvin is misrepresented by the TULIP end of his follower.
lmaopml wrote: » Except "Calvin" himself!?
leonil7 wrote: » therein is your error, thinking 'faith' is some kind of religious gasoline necessary for doing good works. and also the word 'good' as if your presumption that you know what god thinks of your actions automatically qualifies as good with god. there must be a basis for both these words, and not necessarily relative based on opinion. hitler or stalin or pilate might have had good intentions in their pocket the reason they did what they did, but it was just their point of view which obviously most will not agree.
SoulandForm wrote: » What exactly is Calvinist mysticism? Calvinism, unlike Lutheranism, is generally hostile to mysticism. I cant think of a single Calvinist mystic.
tommy2bad wrote: » Er, never meant it to be against Protestantism tbh. I don't think it's either/or, a bit of both more like. I think my thinking on this is a mix of Calvinist mysticism, orthodox Christus Victor and possibly growing up with the good news bible. It's not a matter of faith alone or works alone. Faith is the grace of God prompting the works. Their not different things but rather the same thing expressed differently. If I do something because I think it's what God would want then that's a good thing, when I do something good because I know it a good thing to do then that's better. When my thinking is close to Gods thinking then it better again. As to sorrow over sins? of course your sorry, hurt and ashamed, realizing the hurt you do to others is always going to be difficult but the message of the gospel is that we are not defined by our sins but by being made in the image and likeness of God. We are all sinners, it the nature of living in a fallen world, salvation is based on being forgiven our sins and given the chance to try again. By the way I don't mean I think like God or actual, you know, do any good things, I'm using 'I' because it would be rude to tell others what to do. Anyway I'm still thinking this through, it's a little hand wavie and mixed up.
tommy2bad wrote: » Unfortinuatly when you say we all deserve the fires of hell, you imply an equivalence. I don't think you get it, we are saved, it's done and dusted. All we have to do is accept it or reject it. Yes accepting means change but change because it's what we want, not change because if we don't we get a roasting.
tommy2bad wrote: » I don't think you get it, we are saved, it's done and dusted. All we have to do is accept it or reject it. Yes accepting means change but change because it's what we want, not change because if we don't we get a roasting.
SoulandForm wrote: » I didnt say that God is offended by a holocaust as by an act of masturbation; but Im sure more people here have masturbated as opposed to burned masses of people alive or whatever. Therefore for us masturbation is of more concern. Let us focus on ourselves.
SoulandForm wrote: » A Saviour is only of use for those who need saving- if you feel you dont need saving and are basically alright than Christ is of no real use to you. Only those who are sick need a doctor- Christ did not come for (those who consider themselves) righteous but to save sinners.
tommy2bad wrote: » Yes, because God is as offended by a **** as a Holocaust. :rolleyes: No we don't deserve the fires of Hell, if we did then God made an error in forgiving us. He is a God of justice and knew that we didn't deserve any such punishment. That's why He took on the punishment in our place, to save us. Save, as in rescue or prevent a consequence that would have befallen.
SoulandForm wrote: » We deserve the fires of hell. He or she who doesnt realize their need for Salvation cant really believe in the Saviour.
tommy2bad wrote: » But, but but, Jesus was God, are you saying that He had some sort of temper tantrum and banged his head against a wall or went all Basil Faulty and tried to beat Himself up? (the bit in bold) So our lifestyle choices deserve Crucifixion? A bit harsh don't you think? I hate this 'we all deserve death and torture for our sins' rubbish. It's a blasphemy against Gods forgiveness. If God can offer forgiveness to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or Josef Fritzl, then to say that he threatens us who are in the ha'penny place as evil despots, with the same 'one size fits all' punishment is nonsense.
faith777 wrote: » interesting. but im not sure christ aimed to restricted himself from pain. his pain receptors were very much alive and active as a means for us to understand there was going to be pain to pay for our crime.
faith777 wrote: » God wrath poured out on his son for the very reason that he would feel Gods anger on our behalf. his senses could not be turned off, for if it they were, humanity would see no obligation or compulsion to feel a debt of gratitude towards jesus as the very pain he received was truly what we should have received for our reckless lifestyle choices.
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.
tommy2bad wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Well Dracula may be a veiled metaphor for the rich feeding on the poor so might be truer than you give it credit for. The DaVinci Code otoh is a piece of speculative fiction which lacks any truth whatsoever. This is not to say that the gospels are exactly historical records, the're more like testimonials, they do however contain the truth the authors sought to convey. Difference in content and details reflect the concerns of the author. I would be more suspicious if they all had the same point of view. That would be indicative of coaching or plagiarism of some other source. Oh look we're back to the DaVinci code Yes but we were talking about the miracles of people rising from the dead. How come that type of thing never happens anymore? Wouldn't it be great if it did and we could see them being interviewed on TV? Miracles today are much more boring than they used to be don't you think? Its great if someone gets cured of cancer or Parkinson disease but its not as good as someone being genuinely dead for three or four days and being brought back by some benevolent saint, like happened in the good old days. Has anyone ever heard of a real miracle happening today, like someone losing an arm or a leg and waking up the next day and finds it has grown back? That would be impressive, miraculous almost!
Safehands wrote: » Well Dracula may be a veiled metaphor for the rich feeding on the poor so might be truer than you give it credit for. The DaVinci Code otoh is a piece of speculative fiction which lacks any truth whatsoever. This is not to say that the gospels are exactly historical records, the're more like testimonials, they do however contain the truth the authors sought to convey. Difference in content and details reflect the concerns of the author. I would be more suspicious if they all had the same point of view. That would be indicative of coaching or plagiarism of some other source. Oh look we're back to the DaVinci code
Safehands wrote: » georgieporgy wrote: » When I have finished reading a true story called 'The DaVinci Code' I have a contemporary book by Bram Stoker called Dracula. Its the true story of vampires who feast on blood. Then I'll read this book about the saints who raise people from the dead! Well Dracula may be a veiled metaphor for the rich feeding on the poor so might be truer than you give it credit for. The DaVinci Code otoh is a piece of speculative fiction which lacks any truth whatsoever. This is not to say that the gospels are exactly historical records, the're more like testimonials, they do however contain the truth the authors sought to convey. Difference in content and details reflect the concerns of the author. I would be more suspicious if they all had the same point of view. That would be indicative of coaching or plagiarism of some other source. Oh look we're back to the DaVinci code
georgieporgy wrote: » When I have finished reading a true story called 'The DaVinci Code' I have a contemporary book by Bram Stoker called Dracula. Its the true story of vampires who feast on blood. Then I'll read this book about the saints who raise people from the dead!
georgieporgy wrote: » Safehands wrote: » Clearly he did not go to hell for obvious reasons. Likewise he didn't go to heaven because nobody went to heaven until after the death of Christ. So he went to where all the souls of the just went in Old Testament times. In scripture it's referred to as Abraham's bosom. What makes you think he didn't talk about his experience to his family and friends?http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Who-Raise-Dead-Resurrection/dp/0895557983 has lots of info if you're really interested. When I have finished reading a true story called 'The DaVinci Code' I have a contemporary book by Bram Stoker called Dracula. Its the true story of vampires who feast on blood. Then I'll read this book about the saints who raise people from the dead!
Safehands wrote: » Clearly he did not go to hell for obvious reasons. Likewise he didn't go to heaven because nobody went to heaven until after the death of Christ. So he went to where all the souls of the just went in Old Testament times. In scripture it's referred to as Abraham's bosom. What makes you think he didn't talk about his experience to his family and friends?http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Who-Raise-Dead-Resurrection/dp/0895557983 has lots of info if you're really interested.
Safehands wrote: » Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since. The lance (Greek: λόγχη, lonchē) is mentioned only in the Gospel of John (19:31–37) and not in any of the Synoptic Gospels. The gospel states that the Romans planned to break Jesus' legs, a practice known as crurifragium, which was a method of hastening death during a crucifixion. Just before they did so, they realized that Jesus was already dead and that there was no reason to break his legs. To make sure that he was dead, a Roman soldier (named in extra-Biblical tradition as Longinus) stabbed him in the side. One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance (λόγχη), and immediately there came out blood and water
Ken bryan wrote: » It was his right side. If it did not puncture his lung or his heart of course its plausible, much more so than he died and came back to life, which never happened to anyone, before or since.
Safehands wrote: » georgieporgy wrote: » Of course. One of the most important "miracles" in the new testament, and yet it is only mentioned in John's Gospel. Why is that I wonder? Wouldn't you think that the others may have mentioned in passing that this guy was dead for four days and was brought back to life? Where was he after he died? was he in hell or heaven? He is one of the only ones who ever came back, so he knew all the answers we are all searching for and he gave us no indication. Or maybe, its just a story that never really occurred. Clearly he did not go to hell for obvious reasons. Likewise he didn't go to heaven because nobody went to heaven until after the death of Christ. So he went to where all the souls of the just went in Old Testament times. In scripture it's referred to as Abraham's bosom. What makes you think he didn't talk about his experience to his family and friends?http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Who-Raise-Dead-Resurrection/dp/0895557983 has lots of info if you're really interested.
georgieporgy wrote: » Of course. One of the most important "miracles" in the new testament, and yet it is only mentioned in John's Gospel. Why is that I wonder? Wouldn't you think that the others may have mentioned in passing that this guy was dead for four days and was brought back to life? Where was he after he died? was he in hell or heaven? He is one of the only ones who ever came back, so he knew all the answers we are all searching for and he gave us no indication. Or maybe, its just a story that never really occurred.
