Jesus died on the cross.

mdebets

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And would it make any better if Jesus died the most unimaginably painful death? What are you actually arguing about?

No, it wouldn't make it any better.
I'm not arguing about Jesus not having died on the cross and not being resurected.
All I'm arguing abgainst ist kelly1's argument that because he had a dead so horrible (which I think it was), he must be special. If this argument would be true, there would be many special people, because many people died a more horrifying death on the cross then Jesus.
Jesus is special for other reasons, not because he died a more horrible death than other people.

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

What normally happens during a crucifixion is that you slowly suffocate yourself, because your torso sacks down.
If your legs are broken, you cannot longer support your body and die quickly. For more, read the Wiki article or John 19:31-32.

Yes, I am aware of this, but it does nothing to address my question.

Really, your objection is based not upon your expertise on matters of crucifixion, it's all about your abjection to this Jesus fella. If we had the same account minus the supernatural aspect, I'm quite sure that we wouldn't hear a peep out of you.

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

Jesus is special for other reasons, not because he died a more horrible death than other people.

In that regard I would agree with you. However, Christians also believe that there was an spiritual aspect to his death that was beyond the physical and psychological torture.

mdebets

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I am aware of this, but it does nothing to address my question.

Really, your objection is based not upon your expertise on matters of crucifixion, it's all about your abjection to this Jesus fella. If we had the same account minus the supernatural aspect, I'm quite sure that we wouldn't hear a peep out of you.

I'm actually taking offence with this, as I'm actually a practicing Christian (Lutheran).
I beliefe in God, Jesus Cruxifiction and Resurrection.
What I object to is Christian (and anyone else) making things up to justify their believe.
Look at the current argument.
If I have read kelly1's argument correctly, he says that because Jesus died such a horrifying death (what it really was), he is special (appology, if I misinterpreted your argument).
When you look at the account we have from the Bible and from other cruxifictions, it becomes clear that Jesus only hang on the cross for a very short time, while others wer hanging for days.
If you know take kelly1's argument, where does it leave the others, who suffered more than Christ? Are they more special then him? and when not why not?

Jesus is special because he is the son of God and died for our sins. If he died the most crusome way anyone ever died or not, doesn't really matter.

mdebets

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In that regard I would agree with you. However, Christians also believe that there was an spiritual aspect to his death that was beyond the physical and psychological torture.

I'm in full agreement with you here.
That's why I think its doesn't serve a good purpose, to base an argument just on the part of the physical, which can easily be disprooven.

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

I'm actually taking offence with this, as I'm actually a practicing Christian (Lutheran).
I beliefe in God, Jesus Cruxifiction and Resurrection.
What I object to is Christian (and anyone else) making things up to justify their believe.
Look at the current argument.
If I have read kelly1's argument correctly, he says that because Jesus died such a horrifying death (what it really was), he is special (appology, if I misinterpreted your argument).
When you look at the account we have from the Bible and from other cruxifictions, it becomes clear that Jesus only hang on the cross for a very short time, while others wer hanging for days.
If you know take kelly1's argument, where does it leave the others, who suffered more than Christ? Are they more special then him? and when not why not?

Jesus is special because he is the son of God and died for our sins. If he died the most crusome way anyone ever died or not, doesn't really matter.

I certainly didn't mean to cause offence. My apologies if I took your posts up incorrectly.

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

He didn't "wake up", he was resurrected. Nor, for that matter, did he fly into heaven a few days later. I strongly suggest that if you want to stick around this forum for much longer you at least make an honest attempt to understand the basics of Christianity.



What? Do you have any understanding of what the resurrection was about?



If you want to believe that then that is just fine. Though I'm not sure the disciples would have been convinced that Jesus was divine if he was half-dead.

I don't really want to go down the route of character-attack, but I notice that you do this quite often: you dismiss questions and say "pfh... you don't have any understanding at all." and you don't explain the issue. Could you explain where my understanding is flawed? Please? My stupid questions could end up being a valuable lesson learned if you told me where I'm getting it all wrong.

Seaneh

mdebets wrote: »

You don't understand my argument.
I was not saying he came of lightly. I was saying he came of lightly compared to a normal crucification. What do you think is harder? hanging on the cross for 3 hours or for several days.
You must also see it compared to your argument. You basically say that because he suffered so much on the cross, he is special. I'm just saying that this argument is week, as he came off lightly, compared to others, who were also cruxified.

How did he come off lightly? They drove nails that we would consider rial pins through his wrists and ankles, they didn't have to break his legs because he couldnt use them!

Seaneh

O'Coonassa wrote: »

For Jews to consider the Messiah 'divine' would have been considered utmost blasphemy and they would have been unable to continue preaching and worshipping in the Jerusalem temple as they did.

It seems likely however that the profession of divinity is what got Stephen stoned and is the reason why the Greek followers of Jesus were run out of Jerusalem as depicted in Acts.

John 1:1-14 (New International Version)

And The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Pretty much sums up the devine nature of Christ.
Christians believe that the person God is speaking to when he says "let us creat man in our image" he is talking to Christ, who was there from the beginning.

Zombrex

Seaneh wrote: »

How did he come off lightly? They drove nails that we would consider rial pins through his wrists and ankles, they didn't have to break his legs because he couldnt use them!

He came off lightly compared to other crucified criminals because he died in a relatively short time.

I really don't get what the big issue with this is. It really seems to have wound people up to the point where mdebets was being accused of having something against Jesus (and by implication an atheist! the horror!)

Crucification was supposed to be a long painful death. It was not a means to kill someone it was a means to kill someone over a long period of time causing them to suffer as much as possible and to shame them.

As has already been said you were supposed to survive for a few days and die because your lungs eventually collapsed.

Jesus lasted only a few hours which means that, based purely on the suffering of the crucification and ignoring an supernatural suffering, it was over for him far quicker than it would have been for the average criminal or traitor nailed to a cross.

It is like that movie where the bad guy says Make no mistake, I'm going to kill you. If you tell me what I want to know I'll do it quickly, if you don't I can make it very slow

Would anyone be thinking "Man I would pick the slow painful option.."

Seaneh

Wicknight wrote: »

He came off lightly compared to other crucified criminals because he died in a relatively short time.

I really don't get what the big issue with this is. It really seems to have wound people up to the point where mdebets was being accused of having something against Jesus (and by implication an atheist! the horror!)

Crucification was supposed to be a long painful death. It was not a means to kill someone it was a means to kill someone over a long period of time causing them to suffer as much as possible and to shame them.

As has already been said you were supposed to survive for a few days and die because your lungs eventually collapsed.

Jesus lasted only a few hours which means that, based purely on the suffering of the crucification and ignoring an supernatural suffering, it was over for him far quicker than it would have been for the average criminal or traitor nailed to a cross.

It is like that movie where the bad guy says Make no mistake, I'm going to kill you. If you tell me what I want to know I'll do it quickly, if you don't I can make it very slow

Would anyone be thinking "Man I would pick the slow painful option.."

Thats a fair point but as I've stated before most people were only tied to the pole, jesus ankles were fixed to the pole with a long lump of metal, normally they had to break the legs to "Finish" people off. this wouldnt have been an issue this time around because I dunno if you have ever looked at your ankle, but there isnt a whole lot besides bone down there, his legs were broken already.

Also, I honeslty don't care how christ died, would have been the same outcome if he was beheaded, hung, pulled apart by horses or had his innards ripped out, it wasn't the way in which he died which matter, just that he died!

You also have a point, he did die quickly and this would have lessened the suffering in a substaintial way, but he was scurged first because they knew he had to die quickly, the following day was sacred and if he was still on the corss would have been taken down and let live.

O'Coonassa

Scourging was a common feature of Roman crucifixions as were the nails in the ankles (without the legs having been broken)

Seaneh

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Scourging was a common feature of Roman crucifixions as were the nails in the ankles (without the legs having been broken)

Source?

hideous ape

I reckon the historical character Jesus if interviewed today would say well I didn't expect this much attention...I had some ideas I borrowed but lads seriously calm down.

It's a stranger matter that an entire religion worships a cross...the Romans only ever used either a single wooden post or a T shaped cross for crucifixions. So where did the traditional cross come from? Oh wait some people mis-interpreted the wording of "Jesus died on the cross"...well if that was mis-interpreted what else was....

Basically most of the modern Jesus beliefs are based on words passed on and eventually written down, not what people actually saw...last week I heard Fernando Torres scored a goal from a different city into the top corner of Real Barcelona's goal. It was written on the internet so it must be true!

Seaneh

hideous ape wrote: »

It's a stranger matter that an entire religion worships a cross...

I don't know of a single person in the world who worships a piece of wood to be honest...

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

I don't really want to go down the route of character-attack, but I notice that you do this quite often: you dismiss questions and say "pfh... you don't have any understanding at all." and you don't explain the issue. Could you explain where my understanding is flawed? Please? My stupid questions could end up being a valuable lesson learned if you told me where I'm getting it all wrong.

I'm not attacking your character, I'm questing how well you understand Christianity. Forgive me if I was suspicious of your real intent. We get so many trolls and veiled questions that it iss difficult not to become defensive.

OK! When Christians say that Jesus died on the cross they are referring to an actual death like any of use understands it. In other words, all biological functions had ceased and they weren't going to start again. However, then we get his resurrection.

After this happened, which incidentally was no easier for Jew or Gentile to accept then it is for our generation, Christians (though admittedly not all) believe that Jesus wasn't simply the same person in the same physical state raised from the dead. The resurrection was the beginning of new creation and a new way of being for each person. So this is why the Gospels mention this post resurrection Jesus as being somehow different to how he was before.

With regards to Jesus hanging around for a few days before flying off to heaven - this isn't what the Bible says. Firstly, the Gospels mention that Jesus was around for 40 days after the resurrection and before Ascention. Secondly, though possibly more controversially, theologians like N.T. Wright mention that Ascension didn't involve Jesus blasting off into space like Superman. Rather, this was metaphorical terminology understood much like we would understand that a team described as moving up or down a division doesn't refer to a change in geographical elevation. Nor, it is argued, is heaven a place somewhere up in the sky and filled with disembodied souls sitting on clouds, plucking away on harps.

How could Jesus die and still be God? That's the Trinity for you. He was distinct form God, but also inextricably part of the Godhead.

O'Coonassa

Seaneh wrote: »

Source?

http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/40813/1/Some%20Notes%20on%20Crucifixion.pdf

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation


"In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would be made to approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood.


The Romans reserved this treatment for non-citizens, as stated in the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, dating from 195 and 123 BC. The poet Horace refers to the horribile flagellum (horrible whip) in his Satires, calling for the end of its use. Typically, the one to be punished was stripped naked and bound to a low pillar so that he could bend over it, or chained to an upright pillar so as to be stretched out."

Seaneh

What Fanny said...

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

He came off lightly compared to other crucified criminals because he died in a relatively short time.

I really don't get what the big issue with this is. It really seems to have wound people up to the point where mdebets was being accused of having something against Jesus (and by implication an atheist! the horror!)

I've apologised for my overreaction, Wicknight. I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring it up again. Really, some understanding on your part about the effects the grinding defence Christians here have to offer would probably go a long way to helping you understand the reactions from people like myself.

Seaneh

O'Coonassa wrote: »

http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/40813/1/Some%20Notes%20on%20Crucifixion.pdf

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation


"In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would be made to approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood.


The Romans reserved this treatment for non-citizens, as stated in the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, dating from 195 and 123 BC. The poet Horace refers to the horribile flagellum (horrible whip) in his Satires, calling for the end of its use. Typically, the one to be punished was stripped naked and bound to a low pillar so that he could bend over it, or chained to an upright pillar so as to be stretched out."

"often used" != common.

also, doesnt change anything, means the he was almost dead before he ever reached the hill with the corss because of the Hypovolemic Shock.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nor, for that matter, did he fly into heaven a few days later.

Well, that's what the original Greek says he did :rolleyes:

O'Coonassa

Seaneh wrote: »

Christians believe that the person God is speaking to when he says "let us creat man in our image" he is talking to Christ, who was there from the beginning.

The notion of the logos is Platonic and Gnostic, John was not written by anybody who actually knew Jesus nor even in his land or his era. There are too many contradictions between John and the synoptics for me to accept both as valid. Therefore I have to dismiss one or other and as John is in a minority of one....

hideous ape

Seaneh wrote: »

I don't know of a single person in the world who worships a piece of wood to be honest...

So whats that thing a lot of the older generation of Christians hold in their hand when praying...I'm sure you can work it out!

My point is...if something that has been proven by archaeology has been mis-understood for centuries then...so on and so forth.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Well, that's what the original Greek says he did :rolleyes:

Well, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. Could you expand on this?

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

With regards to Jesus hanging around for a few days before flying off to heaven - this isn't what the Bible says. Firstly, the Gospels mention that Jesus was around for 40 days after the resurrection and before Ascention. Secondly, though possibly more controversially, theologians like N.T. Wright mention that Ascension didn't involve Jesus blasting off into space like Superman. Rather, this was metaphorical terminology understood much like we would understand that a team described as moving up or down a division doesn't refer to a change in geographical elevation.

Ok, I got the 3 day time window wrong. It was 40 days.

So there are two stories of his transition into heaven? One is a bodily ascension, the 2nd is sort of... inter dimensional?

Why is it such a controversial issue though? Surely god would leave no mystery as to what happened with his son. The infallible scriptures say that jesus ascended bodily into heaven while N.T. Wright says otherwise? What authority does N.T. Wright, born 1948, have to change the facts of biblical events? Who do you believe?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nor, it is argued, is heaven a place somewhere up in the sky and filled with disembodied souls sitting on clouds, plucking away on harps.

The bible says that it is an actual place. With gates and all!

http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth/revelation-21.htm

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

Ok, I got the 3 day time window wrong. It was 40 days.

So there are two stories of his transition into heaven? One is a bodily ascension, the 2nd is sort of... inter dimensional?

Why is it such a controversial issue though? Surely god would leave no mystery as to what happened with his son. The infallible scriptures say that jesus ascended bodily into heaven while N.T. Wright says otherwise? What authority does N.T. Wright, born 1948, have to change the facts of biblical events? Who do you believe?

No, Wright argues (correctly, in my not so expert opinion) that the Ascension involved a physical body, not a spiritual entity. He isn't changing any facts, but he is challenging the commonly accepted notion that the Bible talks about a Platonic separation of body and spirit. In other words, the notion that the body dies and is no more and the spirit live on forever in heaven.

Overblood wrote: »

The bible says that it is an actual place. With gates and all!

http://www.allaboutgod.com/truth/revelation-21.htm

Yes, it also mentions 4 horsemen and Jesus descending from the heavens on a horse. This is metaphorical language. However, I've not stated that heaven isn't a real place. Rather, I have challenged the view that it is full of clouds and exists somewhere above our heads.

Overblood

This subject is much too open to metaphor and is much too murky. I give up for now. I'm going to bed.

Pompey Magnus

Seaneh wrote: »

Christians believe that the person God is speaking to when he says "let us creat man in our image" he is talking to Christ, who was there from the beginning.

Another, most historical explanation, to that passage in Genesis is that Yahweh was talking to the other gods which Judaism at the time of writing acknowedged existed, as Judaism originally began as Hedotheistic (worshipping one god but admitting the existence of many gods).

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

He isn't changing any facts, but he is challenging the commonly accepted notion that the Bible talks about a Platonic separation of body and spirit. In other words, the notion that the body dies and is no more and the spirit live on forever in heaven.

It is strange that some Christians today believe that the afterlife is a spiritual existence as I believe this was originally the view of gnostic Christians which was deemed heretical by the orthodoxy which insisted on a belief in a physical afterlife.

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

It is strange that some Christians today believe that the afterlife is a spiritual existence as I believe this was originally the view of gnostic Christians which was deemed heretical by the orthodoxy which insisted on a belief in a physical afterlife.

Yes, it most certainly is strange. That a fairly large proportion of Christians (especially cultural Christians) would confuse the Christianity of the NT with a type of Gnostic or Platonic dualism is an indictment on what a poor job the church has done over the years. While I would argue that it may not actually make any difference to the matter of salvation, it would still be nice if it was discussed more.

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

This subject is much too open to metaphor and is much too murky. I give up for now. I'm going to bed.

Possibly, but the earliest Christians certainly believed in a bodily resurrection and a bodily ascension. In there view there was nothing metaphorical about either, Later it was beliefs like Gnosticism and Docetism that clouded issues that were apparently difficult enough for the Disciples to grasp - at lest in the beginning.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Nor, for that matter, did he fly into heaven a few days later.

Well, that's what the original Greek says he did

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. Could you expand on this?

All occurrences of the ascension story in the NT refer to the bodily ascent of Jesus into the sky. Amongst these are:

Mark 16:19 (Greek)
Luke 24:51 (Greek)
Acts 1:2 (Greek)
Ephesians 4:7-10 (Greek)
Timothy 3:16 (Greek)

And elsewhere. The Greek makes it quite clear that the flight into the sky was a physical event in which Jesus departed from the surface of the earth and somehow flew upwards. Incidentally, in these passages, the word for "heaven" is the regular Greek word for "sky" - the text does not distinguish between "heaven" (the abode of the gods) and the "sky" (the blue thing with the clouds) as the English translations, less than faithfully, do.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

All occurrences of the ascension story in the NT refer to the bodily ascent of Jesus into the sky. Amongst these are:

Mark 16:19 (Greek)
Luke 24:51 (Greek)
Acts 1:2 (Greek)
Ephesians 4:7-10 (Greek)
Timothy 3:16 (Greek)

And elsewhere. The Greek makes it quite clear that the flight into the sky was a physical event in which Jesus departed from the surface of the earth and somehow flew upwards. Incidentally, in these passages, the word for "heaven" is the regular Greek word for "sky" - the text does not distinguish between "heaven" (the abode of the gods) and the "sky" (the blue thing with the clouds) as the English translations, less than faithfully, do.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with what is said. I was actually mainly disagreeing the notion that it was a "few days later". But I was also trying to point out a different perspective on a common notion that Jesus in either spirit or body blasted off up to and into heaven, which just happens to hover above our heads.

Bougeoir

kelly1 wrote: »

I very much doubt your sincerity or maybe tact isn't your strong point but I'll try to answer your questions.

Think about what you're saying. He was scourged, beaten, given a crown of thorns and made to carry a cross to His place of execution, nailed to the cross through His hands and feet and hung on the cross for 3 hours before being lanced with a spear and you really think He could have survived this ordeal??? If you think Jesus got off lightly, in what way do you think He should have suffered more?

Sorry correction. He was nailed through his wrists, not his hands. Through his wrists would ensure he'd die quicker and hold him in place (the nail would just rip through his hands cos they wouldn't be able to support the weight). To depict him nailed through the palms of his hands has been a historical mistake. Archaeologists have found similar bodies that had possibly been crucified by the romans and all of them had been nailed through the wrists.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with what is said. I was actually mainly disagreeing the notion that it was a "few days later".

AFAIR, none of the texts really indicate how much later it was, but it was probably more than a "few days" anyway.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I was also trying to point out a different perspective on a common notion that Jesus in either spirit or body blasted off up to and into heaven, which just happens to hover above our heads.

As above, the text says that he was taken, bodily, up into the sky. In later years, this meaning has come to mean a spiritual translation of some kind, or a disappearance to another dimension or something similar, as it became obvious that heaven certainly wasn't hovering above our heads and major religious figures would look silly if they became airborne. However, that wasn't what the authors wrote and it wasn't the meaning they wished to convey.

BTW, what's more interesting than a peculiar story about Jesus disappearing up into the sky, is the fact that almost nobody seemed to recognize Jesus after he had come back to life again. In, I think, each instance, those present had to be prompted to recognize him. A bit suspicious that, I must say.

PDN

Originally Posted by Wicknight
What qualifies as a "full blown death"

Overblood wrote: »

Your heart stops, you lie down, and you don't get up again. Ever.

According to Christian belief no human being has ever met Overblood's definition of "full blown death" as all will be resurrected.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

AFAIR, none of the texts really indicate how much later it was, but it was probably more than a "few days" anyway.

As already written, it was 40 days after resurrection. See the opening verses of Acts.

robindch wrote: »

As above, the text says that he was taken, bodily, up into the sky. In later years, this meaning has come to mean a spiritual translation of some kind, or a disappearance to another dimension or something similar, as it became obvious that heaven certainly wasn't hovering above our heads and major religious figures would look silly if they became airborne. However, that wasn't what the authors wrote and it wasn't the meaning they wished to convey.

But robin, I've not argued anything differently. Indeed, I actually made the same point before you in posts 81 and 77. Admittedly I was dog tired when I was writing the posts, so maybe my point didn't come through as I intended I certainly could have done a better job of explaining myself in post 67.

A somewhat minor point, but Wright would disagree with you that the disciples could have only been referring to heaven existing somewhere in the stratosphere or beyond. While they may not have had a concept of dimensions, "the early Christians and their fellow first-century Jews, were not, as many modern thinkers have supposed, locked into thinking of a three-decker universe with heaven up in the sky and hell beneath their feet."

Of recent times, there is a shift back towards the message as understood by the earliest Christians and away from the disembodied Christ that seems prevalent. I happen to agree with this shift back to the original understanding and away form Platonic influences.

robindch wrote: »

... that almost nobody seemed to recognize Jesus after he had come back to life again. In, I think, each instance, those present had to be prompted to recognize him. A bit suspicious that, I must say.

That's not a difficulty. In fact, it's an aspect of the post-resurrection body of Jesus that was understood (as best one could), accepted and celebrated.

Look at end of John 21:11. Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord.

Whatever type of body Jesus had post-resurrection, it was strangely and decidedly different than the pre-resurrection body. So sometimes it wasn't recognised by those closest to him (both in the geographical and relationship senses of the word), while at other times it was able to do some very odd things, yet it was also physical in the sense that we all understand the term. This, as I've already mentioned, was understood by the earliest Christians as the beginning of new creation and a new mode of being, where God, through Jesus, set about putting the world to rights.

I wouldn't agree that his identity had to be mysteriously revealed to everybody, like a mask falling from a face. There certainly are circumstance under which this is reported, but these were to the close confidants of Jesus. It would be odd to think that they wouldn't recognise someone they had been following for so long. But perhaps you think that is more likely than God doing things in such a way.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As already written, it was 40 days after resurrection. See the opening verses of Acts.

Out of interest did Jesus pop back to Heaven for a quick visit before this? In the Gospel of John Jesus does not allow Mary of Magdalene to touch him after the resurrection because he has not "ascended to his Father" but later in the Gospel he allows Thomas to touch him, implying that he ascended into Heaven between both events and returned to Earth before ascending for a second time.

A somewhat minor point, but Wright would disagree with you that the disciples could have only been referring to heaven existing somewhere in the stratosphere or beyond. While they may not have had a concept of dimensions, "the early Christians and their fellow first-century Jews, were not, as many modern thinkers have supposed, locked into thinking of a three-decker universe with heaven up in the sky and hell beneath their feet."

Out of interest what does Wright base this argument on? A three tiered universe was the standard Jewish understanding of the time and I don't know of anything from the NT which challenges this view or indicates that Jesus or his followers believed in anything differently, but I may be wrong so I'd like to know where he gets his argument from.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Out of interest did Jesus pop back to Heaven for a quick visit before this? In the Gospel of John Jesus does not allow Mary of Magdalene to touch him after the resurrection because he has not "ascended to his Father" but later in the Gospel he allows Thomas to touch him, implying that he ascended into Heaven between both events and returned to Earth before ascending for a second time.

The word haptomai should probably be translated in its primary sense of 'cling to' or 'embrace' rather than simply 'touch'. (haptomai was also used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse because it meant to press your body against someone or something).

So, there are three possible ways of interpreting Jesus' words to Mary Magdalene:
a) Fruitcakes who base their beliefs on the Davinci Code can interpret it as Jesus saying that He and Mary should resist the temptation to have intercourse.
b) Those who ignore the distinction between haptomai and ballo (literally 'thrust' - the word used in relation to Thomas touching Jesus) can construct an imaginary contradiction between Jesus' words to Mary and to Thomas.
c) We can keep in context and see that Jesus was saying to Mary, "Don't cling to me as if I'm back with you all like before - because I'm going to ascend to the Father and, as I've already told you all at length, then the Holy Spirit will be with you instead of my bodily presence."

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As already written, it was 40 days after resurrection. See the opening verses of Acts.

Hold on a sec, how can you say that jesus staying around for 40 days is a fact, and then say Jesus' ascension on day 40 into heaven was a metaphor? How do you know what's metaphor or not? Maybe it's all metaphor. Maybe it's all fact.

Anyways, my original post was about Jesus not sacrificing himself for your sins, since he only died for three days and then came back to life. That's not sacrifice. He cheated.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

robindch wrote:

... that almost nobody seemed to recognize Jesus after he had come back to life again. In, I think, each instance, those present had to be prompted to recognize him.

That's not a difficulty. In fact, it's an aspect of the post-resurrection body of Jesus that was understood (as best one could), accepted and celebrated.

Well, while it might be celebrated (though as I said above, I've never come across any such celebration), I do think that the fact that Jesus was unrecognizable does present an rather enormous difficulty to people who think that Paul's report that five hundred people saw him and presumably recognized him when his own friends and family weren't able to.

Seaneh

I can't think of what book or chapter but in the first few books of the bible there is a story of God sending an angel from heaven to rescue someone form somehting (very vague here im sorry) and it says it took the angel 7 days to reach earth and in those seven dayes he crossed many "planes" and had to fight many battles to reach the person who he was trying to rescue.

In my understanding this show's that the bible, from a very early stage, does not show a 3 teir existance and this could be used to describe some sort of inter dimensional or universal exchange.

If the bible painted heaven as simply up in the sky and hell as simply below the earth then how could the angel have had such a hard time getting from heaven to earth, surely he would have just floated down and did whatever he was doing and then float back up?

Fanny Cradock

Overblood wrote: »

Hold on a sec, how can you say that jesus staying around for 40 days is a fact, and then say Jesus' ascension on day 40 into heaven was a metaphor? How do you know what's metaphor or not? Maybe it's all metaphor. Maybe it's all fact.

I suggested that the use of a term like "up to heaven" was metaphorical because heaven isn't located up in the sky. I've not suggested that entering heaven was a metaphor. OK?

Overblood wrote: »

Anyways, my original post was about Jesus not sacrificing himself for your sins, since he only died for three days and then came back to life. That's not sacrifice. He cheated.

Why do you think he cheated? Are there some rules to resurrection that one should follow and that Jesus didn't?

Let me try and explain my position and that of many Christians. That Jesus' death wasn't the most torturous or protracted execution known to man is really besides the point. It's what he did on the cross in relation to our sin that is important. That was the sacrifice. Likewise, it doesn't matter that he was dead for only 3 days. Why should it? The whole point of his resurrection was that death had been conquered. This ushered in the beginnings of the new creation of all the cosmos where everything will be put to rights some day.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Well, while it might be celebrated (though as I said above, I've never come across any such celebration), I do think that the fact that Jesus was unrecognizable does present an rather enormous difficulty to people who think that Paul's report that five hundred people saw him and presumably recognized him when his own friends and family weren't able to.

Well, if you find difficulty with such things then so be it. Personally speaking, I don't know what a resurrection body should do or how it should look at any given moment, so I'm not shocked to read that it could do strange things. However, if you want to insert your own suspicions for people not instantly recognizing Jesus then that is your choice. Though I would be confused as to why the early Christians would bother putting in such apparently damning details to the accounts.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suggested that the use of a term like "up to heaven" was metaphorical because heaven isn't located up in the sky.

Maybe your understanding of Heaven is that it is not "up" in the sky but this was the common belief back when the accounts were written, the modern understanding of the Universe should not be applied when trying to understand what ancient people believed existed beyond the sky.

Likewise, it doesn't matter that he was dead for only 3 days. Why should it? The whole point of his resurrection was that death had been conquered.

Why was Jesus' resurrection the turning point in which death was conquered, he wasn't the first person to be resurrected. Was death not conquered when Elijah raised a young boy from the dead for example (1 Kings 17:17-24)?

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

Maybe your understanding of Heaven is that it is not "up" in the sky but this was the common belief back when the accounts were written, the modern understanding of the Universe should not be applied when trying to understand what ancient people believed existed beyond the sky.

If you want to believe that the early Christians were not capable of nuanced thought on such matters then that is just fine. I wouldn't cross the road to attempt you otherwise. However, you might be interested in the eschatological perspectives of eminent theologians like Wright and Polkinghorne.

Charco wrote: »

Why was Jesus' resurrection the turning point in which death was conquered, he wasn't the first person to be resurrected. Was death not conquered when Elijah raised a young boy from the dead for example (1 Kings 17:17-24)?

There is an obvious distinction. Lazarus, this young boy or whoever else may well have been brought back from the dead, but they were revisited by death again. They are now as dead as Elvis, the Dodo and disco. Jesus, on the other had, was the first to be resurrected which means he is now, and will forever remain, physically whole and alive. Indeed, one might even suggest the post resurrection body is more alive than what we currently think of as being alive. The distinction between resurrection and being brought back to life (to again die at a later date) was understood by Jews and the Christians alike. Indeed, both religions still look forward to the resurrection of all mankind.

kelly1

mdebets wrote: »

All I'm arguing abgainst ist kelly1's argument that because he had a dead so horrible (which I think it was), he must be special. If this argument would be true, there would be many special people, because many people died a more horrifying death on the cross then Jesus.

Sorry, where did I say that the manner of Jesus' death made Him special? The point I made is that Jesus died quickly on the cross due to the torture He suffered before the crucifixion.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you want to believe that the early Christians were not capable of nuanced thought on such matters then that is just fine. I wouldn't cross the road to attempt you otherwise. However, you might be interested in the eschatological perspectives of eminent theologians like Wright and Polkinghorne.

I'm not saying that early Christians weren't capable of nuanced matters to do with Heaven, there are some extremely bizaare and wonderful expanations from early Christianites dealing with this subject. What I am saying though is that these nuances do not seem to be present in the New Testament in which we see Angels coming down, Jesus being taken up, voices coming from the sky, the living righteous being taken up into the air to meet Christ who is coming down. These seem pretty standard to the common view in antiquity that the gods/God lived up in the sky. That said I am not aware of the arguments of Wright or Polkinghorne.

Jesus, on the other had, was the first to be resurrected which means he is now, and will forever remain, physically whole and alive.

Ok then, so even though Jesus wasn't the first person to be brought back to life and neither was he the first person to be brought up to Heaven and never taste death (Elijah and perhaps Enoch got this honour before him), as he did both of these things together is what means humanity is saved from death, even though both these things had already been achieved seperately before Jesus?

On the matter of Elijah will he be unlucky enough to miss out on a post-resurrected body as he never actually died as he was brought up to Heaven in his mortal form, you can't be resurrected after all if you have never died.

Kelly1 wrote:

The point I made is that Jesus died quickly on the cross due to the torture He suffered before the crucifixion.

Is there any evidence for Jesus suffering any worse a scourging prior to his crucifixion than the other two criminals that were executed that day? The Gospel of Mel Gibson doesn't count as evidence by the way.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't know what a resurrection body should do or how it should look at any given moment, so I'm not shocked to read that it could do strange things. However, if you want to insert your own suspicions for people not instantly recognizing Jesus then that is your choice.

I'm not inserting suspicions, I'm simply pointing out that if Jesus came back to life again in such a way as his own friends and family couldn't recognize him, then it seems peculiar that 500 people (the majority, presumably not friends and family) would recognize him.

The dilemma can be resolved very simply without having to resort to the claim that somebody came back to life after being executed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Though I would be confused as to why the early Christians would bother putting in such apparently damning details to the accounts.

Because the devil is in the detail?

kelly1

Charco wrote: »

Is there any evidence for Jesus suffering any worse a scourging prior to his crucifixion than the other two criminals that were executed that day? The Gospel of Mel Gibson doesn't count as evidence by the way.

I'm not aware that the other 2 criminals were scourged. Do you know if they were? Was it standard practice to scourge criminals before crucifixion? I don't know.