|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Cross
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
How do you view it?
Essentially, there are four ways it is viewed.
1. The cross is victory over evil. Ever since the rebellion of Adam and Eve the Devil has been holding us for ransom. Jesus pays this ransom with his death on the cross. His resurrection symbolizes his victory over death--which is Satan's greatest weapon
2. The cross is satisfaction for God's wrath. God gave mankind the chance to chose life, but we chose death. No matter what we do we screw things up. We find ourselves in a trial where all we deserve is everlasting punishment. Enter Jesus. Jesus becomes our everlasting scapegoat taking our punishment on himself.
3) The cross as moral victory. We are in a world of violence. We can give into that violence, but Jesus gives us a different way. Like Gandhi and Martin Luther King we can chose non violence. Instead of acting out of hate we can chose love. The greatest example of love is being willing to give up ones life for another.
4) The cross as means of transformation. The cross is the means by which God has restored a corrupted relationship with humanity. God, in the person of Christ, transfused divine life into every stage of human existence – from birth to death. This view says God cares so much for us he is willing to experience the fullness of life, even willing to die to show us that we can come out on the other side.
The question really is, how is the cross informing your life now? Are you, yourself, cruciform? How does that play out in your lives? How does each facet instruct your footsteps?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, your list includes a lot of sub-categories. There's no mention there of, for example, "substitution" which would form sub-categories of at least items 1 (victory over evil - where substitution could include Christ as our Champion, fighting the battle we cannot hope to win ourselves) and 2 (satisfaction - where substitution is implied, with Christ taking the wrath of God on Himself, standing in our place).
A lot of evangelicals would comment on the absense of any legal item. So, that would need to be 5 - Christ paying the penalty for our sins.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It's 'all of the above'.
All the metaphors have a basis in Scripture but the 'best' ones are the ones that actually deal with sin.
A moral example/influence might be admirable but it doesn't save me any more than a kind man standing on a riverbank will save a drowning man simply by being amiable - he's got to jump in and get wet and make an effort to save the guy!
And as for the horror of the cross and the nonsensical nature of it - well yes, of course!
It's a stumbling block - a scandal - and it's foolishness!
Died he for me, who caused his pain? For me, who him to death pursued? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
[ 31. March 2015, 06:43: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Why not ask it itself?
The Dream of the Rood
quote:
It was years ago (that, I still remember),
that I was cut down from the edge of the forest,
removed from my foundation. Strong enemies seized me there,
they made me into a spectacle for themselves, commanded me to lift up their criminals.
Men carried me there on their shoulders, until they set me on a hill . . .
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
And we were all given on Sunday, a cross in the church, to hake home and remember about God and Jesus and His Mother.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
It's also a mirror exposing the darkness of own souls. No surprise then that some recoil from it.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I recall this row about a cross outside a church from some years ago. Now, I accept of course that not everyone may share the same artistic tastes (personally I think that the sculpture was of its time, but good).
But I felt that the comments expressed by the Vicar and his parishioners showed how far the Cross had drifted from modern secularist thinking (in 1963 it would have been common currency) and also how society has changed in its willingness to accept scenes of suffering ("You may find some of the images contained in this report disturbing", as often said in television news reports).
So has the Cross indeed become more "foolish" as the values it espouses become further removed from contemporary cultural values? And what does replacing a "horrific" Crucifix with a bland stainless steel Cross say about the Church's attitudes to both that culture and our own faith? St. Paul never pretended that it was "nice" or "acceptable" - quite the opposite, in fact.
P.S. It's intriguing that said sculpture is not thought to cause a problem when displayed in a museum, when (a) it is safely contained indoors and passers-by will not come upon it unawares and (b) it can have its teeth drawn by being reclassified as "art" rather than "an expression of religious belief".
[ 31. March 2015, 07:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It was interesting that in an entertainment world that demands more and more violence and more realistic and graphic acts of brutality, death, and bloodshed, that when The Passion of the Christ was released Hollywood and nigh on 90% of the critics shouted that it was obscene, pornographic, too violent, etc, etc, etc.
It's as if the world wants a gentle Jesus 'Gandhi-figure' but they don't want a crucified Christ.
But as John Paul II said, 'It is at it was'.
I remember Ian Paisley said that he didn't like the Christ of Saint John of the Cross because there were no nails, no thorns, no wounds, no blood.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I'd go with all of that, although Gibson may perhaps have over-emphasised the agony (I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment).
I even agree with Mr. Paisley's remarks! It was mentioned to me years ago that Dali's Christ is docetic as he is detached from the ground and does not share in the life of the "real world".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
All four of Gramps49's options and a few more. The cross is bigger than we are. It's rather like the blind men and the elephant. The one thing one can say with confidence is that anyone who says 'this is the right understanding and everyone else is wrong' is themselves wrong.
Incidentally, while we're criticising the Dali painting for being Docetic - which I can see but don't actually agree with - the accusation that the cross can't be acceptable because it represents cosmic child abuse is itself founded in a profoundly Arian non-understanding of the Trinity.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
[ 31. March 2015, 08:41: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I've often seen the cross quite symbolically, for example as the intersection of time (horizontal) and the present (vertical), or as the reconciliation of opposites. But these are not antithetical meanings to the Christian ones, well, not for me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally... the accusation that the cross can't be acceptable because it represents cosmic child abuse is itself founded in a profoundly Arian non-understanding of the Trinity.
Yes, and it's also the view that was first put forward by a womanist theologian (as distinct to a feminist theologian) who was totally against any form of violent redemption whatever.
I can't remember who she was.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Well the cross is simply a Roman instrument of torture by which many people died horrible deaths.
In Jesus' case, as an instrument of torture, it represents humanities propensity for evil and violence when someone speaks truth to power and the status quo.
But the good news is God doesn't let evil and violence and death have the last word. Jesus is resurrected and vindicated. If we share in his sufferings now, we too will be raised with him.
In sharing his sufferings, we walk in his way, speak truth to power, relinquish ego when appropriate and live in love for others.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally... the accusation that the cross can't be acceptable because it represents cosmic child abuse is itself founded in a profoundly Arian non-understanding of the Trinity.
Yes, and it's also the view that was first put forward by a womanist theologian (as distinct to a feminist theologian) who was totally against any form of violent redemption whatever.
I can't remember who she was.
Well violence certainly begets violence so that makes sense. We are told to love our enemies after all.
As for the cosmic child abuse issue being founded on a Arian non-understanding of the Trinity, I don't think so. It's more like a rejection of the heresy of Docetism. Jesus did suffer on the cross as fully human.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
This is precisely the problem if Jesus' death is seen as purely an activity of God. But it isn't. It was people that crucified Jesus. Not God.
Both God and Jesus probably knew it was inevitable that Jesus would die ( as per the prophets etc - standard fare for those that speak truth to power), but that's different.
quote:
Acts of the Apostles 4.10:
let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,* , whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.
It was God that raised and vindicated Jesus, it was evil that killed him.
[ 31. March 2015, 10:39: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The point is that the cosmic child abuse people imply that God picked out an innocent 'child' (Jesus the son of God) and made him suffer unimaginably so he, God, could redeem the world.
Thjat view suggests that Jesus was unwitting, unwilling, powerless and that the death was unjustified and needless.
It doesn't talke into account the divinity of jesus, his willingness to lay down his lig#fe, the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that on the cross the Father also suffered (though in a different way to the suffering of the Son, in that he suffered the loss of his only begotten, One who was essentially the same as the Father.)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Ah yes, the basis for the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel. Don't you just love the New Testament?
Matt 27:25
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is that the cosmic child abuse people imply that God picked out an innocent 'child' (Jesus the son of God) and made him suffer unimaginably so he, God, could redeem the world.
Thjat view suggests that Jesus was unwitting, unwilling, powerless and that the death was unjustified and needless.
No, not really. Cosmic child abuse is an emotive term, but in the classical evangelical way of telling the story, God decides someone must die to pay the price of sin. So sends his son.. who was also himself.
Of course, there was no need for him to do this to cover sin - see David, Moses, Abraham etc and so on. It doesn't even work within the religious parameters that it sets itself - if God is God, he can do anything, including forgiving whichever sins he feels like at any time and for any reason.
quote:
It doesn't talke into account the divinity of jesus, his willingness to lay down his lig#fe, the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that on the cross the Father also suffered (though in a different way to the suffering of the Son, in that he suffered the loss of his only begotten, One who was essentially the same as the Father.)
No, sorry, classical Penal Substitutionary Atonement does none of those things - indeed it insists that the only purpose of Jesus coming to the planet was to die for sin.
The cross does not need to be a penal substitutionary atonement for it to be an atonement. Hence the numerous (better) theories of the atonement held throughout history.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Is this a parallel thread on the atonement?
If so, it seems to me that there's a danger of reducing the whole idea of the atonement to an instrument involved in part of it.
I'm only just trying to point this out - certainly the cross has many aspects to consider, and thinking on those has long been a discipline for Holy Week.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah yes, the basis for the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel. Don't you just love the New Testament?
Matt 27:25
Ooooh forgot that one.
As for your second post. Thou hast redeemed thyself in my eyes. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (not that it matters mind you).
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mudfrog: It was interesting that in an entertainment world that demands more and more violence and more realistic and graphic acts of brutality, death, and bloodshed, that when The Passion of the Christ was released Hollywood and nigh on 90% of the critics shouted that it was obscene, pornographic, too violent, etc, etc, etc.
I remember this film being heavily discussed on the Ship when it came out. Criticisms were flying high, but most of them weren't about "it's obscene, it's pornographic, it's too violent".
The problem with showing a suffering Jesus to me isn't the obscenity of it, but when it is done with pride. We did this to Someone. We still do this to people. We shouldn't be proud of that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The problem with showing a suffering Jesus to me isn't the obscenity of it, but when it is done with pride. We did this to Someone. We still do this to people. We shouldn't be proud of that.
Exactly.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The Cross is the bridge, based in the earth, but with the cross-bar and top, where His head lay, in Heaven, that forms the bridge over which Jesus wu=ill lead us at our time.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The problem I think is that Christian beliefs about the cross developed in a post hoc way. That is, the apostles understood that Jesus' death and resurrection somehow made things better, and tried to work out how this could be so. Whereas a lot of writers treat the cross as though it could somehow be derived a priori - that is, by thinking logically about God's attributes you would eventually conclude with the cross.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
Just about all NT scholars are cool with the central facts of the case. - Jesus got stitched up, crucified and was dead at the end of it. Most also go with the notion that he knew what he was getting himself into. Now plenty of people got crucified by the Romans - question I'd be interested in your take on is why this crucified guy stood out from the others and why anyone but his closest followers should care less.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
One simple difference, which rather points to his being Son of God, is that everyone else who was executed by the Romans, stayed dead.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The cross spells out God's message 'I'm not asking you to do anything I'm not willing to go through myself - and look, I came through it better than before despite them doing the worst they could do to me."
It informs my life every time people hurt me or let me down, every time I start to feel sorry for myself, every time I stand alongside someone who is suffering. This is how it is, for now, but we can trust in God to bring something good out of all of the evil and corruption we face in this world.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The earliest date of the Gospel of Mark was 66 AD. The question of who wrote it is up in the air but it could likely have been someone who was an actual witness to the events.
As for the cross being a Roman instrument of torture, the Persians actually were the first people to use it. Like everything else, the Romans just borrowed it.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The cross spells out God's message 'I'm not asking you to do anything I'm not willing to go through myself - and look, I came through it better than before despite them doing the worst they could do to me."
It informs my life every time people hurt me or let me down, every time I start to feel sorry for myself, every time I stand alongside someone who is suffering. This is how it is, for now, but we can trust in God to bring something good out of all of the evil and corruption we face in this world.
These concepts are core to my trust in Christ, too. I probably don't have a true understanding of everything the cross means, but I trust the Godhead implicitly because in Christ I was joined to God and given hope because, in grace, he came to us in his creation, in all its joys, beauties, fears, and horrors.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
I understand The Cross -- and Resurrection!!! -- as Ultimate Prophetic Act ...
The Word took on flesh and lived -- and died, and ROSE -- among us ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
Just about all NT scholars are cool with the central facts of the case. - Jesus got stitched up, crucified and was dead at the end of it. Most also go with the notion that he knew what he was getting himself into. Now plenty of people got crucified by the Romans - question I'd be interested in your take on is why this crucified guy stood out from the others and why anyone but his closest followers should care less.
I honestly don't know.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
God: "Hey George I'm going to torture my son/myself to death."
Me: (Backs away slowly with horrified expression on my face).
I'd suggest that the cross and death of Jesus was a human decision, and a human decision alone. God does what God does with such things: makes something transformative. God doesn't intervene. The various interpretations of it and Jesus death are human constructions, and as noted by others, created years after by earnest and well-meaning people, but are constructed in good measure, not merely retold.
If Jesus had lived to a ripe old age and died in his bed, God would have made something transformative of that too. Or if he'd been stoned to death as a heretic, or anything else.
But I think the dying in his bed is unlikely, because his trajectory was going to bring him into contact with authority at some point. Perhaps dying in jail is the most realistic option if he wasn't murdered or executed. But,ultimately, it is not the manner of death that is important, even as it is a fetish for some. The manner of life is more important.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I think I may have mentioned it before, but Windows on the Cross by Tom Smail has been a very helpful book for me.
He invites people to imagine a house, arranged around the four sides of a large internal courtyard, at the centre of which is a cross. All four sides of the house that face onto the courtyard have windows, through which you can look to see the cross.
He then goes onto to explain the many different ways of understanding the cross, giving them as the different windows through which we can see the cross. The point he tries to make is that none of the windows gives us a complete picture of the cross, although all of them give us some aspect of what the cross really is.
There is no single theory or doctrine of the cross. There are many different ideas and suggestions (a lot of them found in the New Testament, though not all). And at the end of the day, we are still left with a certain degree of mystery. We believe that the cross brings us to God; that through it we can find life, forgiveness and God's love. But HOW that happens is not (IMHO) totally clear.
Did Jesus HAVE to die on a cross? In other words, was it inevitable or even God-ordained? I don't think it was inevitable, as at every point Jesus had the opportunity to walk away, and people like Pilate had the opportunity to make different decisions. I also don't think it was "God-ordained" if, by that, you mean that God insisted that a bloody, agonising death was the only way "salvation" could be achieved. This gets us far too close to God as the cosmic torturer and utter bastard.
But the point is that we can never know. All we can say is that this is the way things panned out for Jesus and that the Christian faith has seen this to be not just a mindless tragedy, but a means through which God has achieved something miraculous.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I don't believe in any of the ideas put forward in the OP.
For me, the incarnation is the salvific event.
The cross is simply a bi-product of Jesus living a free life - the powers that be didn't like that so they pout him to death.
This roughly the line taken by the late Fr. Herbert McCabe, OP.
How does it affect me? I try, on good days, to live a free life.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Crucifixion is public and relatively slow.
It is an interesting exercise to speculate on what might have happened had Jesus been executed in some other way or had not been executed but imprisoned.
For instance, if Jesus had been stoned, he presumably still would have had last words, more so than if he had been hanged. He certainly could have been killed out of hand in the garden by men with swords. If he had been burned at the stake, then presumably our churches would have eternal flames burning at the altar.
The death of Socrates provides some comparison and contrast.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ah yes, the basis for the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel. Don't you just love the New Testament?
Matt 27:25
Ooooh forgot that one.
As for your second post. Thou hast redeemed thyself in my eyes. (not that it matters mind you).
Of course it matters.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Question is George, what do you make of the cross as an atheist? Assuming there's no God involved, how do you see the cross and how Jesus approached it as an historical event?
As an atheist? Well my understanding is that the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus and not by anyone who was there at the time so it's questionable how much they claim to happen actually happened. If Jesus was crucified then as an atheist I'd say that the cross seems to be a horrific, barbaric thing. Also a nonsensical thing to do.
Just about all NT scholars are cool with the central facts of the case. - Jesus got stitched up, crucified and was dead at the end of it. Most also go with the notion that he knew what he was getting himself into. Now plenty of people got crucified by the Romans - question I'd be interested in your take on is why this crucified guy stood out from the others and why anyone but his closest followers should care less.
I honestly don't know.
Well here's a little teaser for you me ol" china. Keep an eye on the thread, and when it's run out of steam tell us which answer seems the least incredible to you.
Cheers TW
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Symbolically, the cross represents the 4 elements of the material world - it is the cross of matter. The astrological signs are based on combinations of Spirit (circle), soul (crescent moon) and matter (cross), so e.g. Venus is spirit resting on matter and the traditional symbol for Mars is an orb - i.e. matter resting on spirit.
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death... Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
Well, there is this alternative image... Whatever you think of it as an explanation, it does use the cross in a more positive way.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I think those people (who focus on the suffering) are trying to point out the costly nature of that love. His is a love that has been thoroughly tried, unlike (say) mine.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think I may have mentioned it before, but Windows on the Cross by Tom Smail has been a very helpful book for me.
Many thanks for this recommedation, and your discussion of it. I need this one.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
It doesn't talke into account the divinity of jesus, his willingness to lay down his lig#fe, the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and that on the cross the Father also suffered (though in a different way to the suffering of the Son, in that he suffered the loss of his only begotten, One who was essentially the same as the Father.)
No, sorry, classical Penal Substitutionary Atonement does none of those things - indeed it insists that the only purpose of Jesus coming to the planet was to die for sin.
The cross does not need to be a penal substitutionary atonement for it to be an atonement. Hence the numerous (better) theories of the atonement held throughout history.
Hey, I'm no fan of PSA (see other thread), but it most certainly does contain all those elements. The key one being the fact that in Jesus is found the fullness of God, so figuring PSA (for all it's faults) as cosmic child abuse is to greatly misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity (not unusual of course).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
For instance, if Jesus had been stoned, he presumably still would have had last words, more so than if he had been hanged.
Jehovah! Jehovah! *
______
(*I am so going to Hell)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
In terms of Jesus, I find it difficult to comprehend that a religion uses a symbol that was the method used to torture him to death. Would we do the same today and have the symbol of the holy waterboard or the blessed iron bedstead with generator attached? Why focus on the suffering when the message was Love? I honestly just don't get it.
That's what Paul calls "the scandal of the cross." The cross itself shows us love in a way never seen before or since-- the notion of a God who enters into human suffering and death is an astounding, audacious, radical statement about love-- and the means thru which God entered into death is therefore a very apt symbol for God's love and grace.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
For instance, if Jesus had been stoned, he presumably still would have had last words, more so than if he had been hanged.
Jehovah! Jehovah! *
"You're only making it worse for yourself …"
______
(*I am so going to Hell)
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think the more important lesson about the Cross is that Jesus did not respond to violence with violence, he did not call for a legion of armed angels from heaven to rescue him and inflict violence on those who was hurting him.
He chose a martyr's death over responding violence with violence.
The question is not "why does violence happen?" The question is "how do we respond to it?"
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The question is not "why does violence happen?" The question is "how do we respond to it?"
Hear, hear.
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"You're only making it worse for yourself …"
"How could it be worse?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
