Thread: Was Christ's suffering really all that bad? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029684
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
When one suffers pain or trouble or betrayal, it is a commonplace to be told 'Well Christ suffered that, so he understands'. But what did Christ suffer?
The traditional narrative has Christ arrested on the Thursday evening and dead by the middle of Friday afternoon. Sure, crucifixion is a most horrible way to die, and being let down by your closest friends is awful. But it was all over in quite a brief period of time. Some people have been, and are, tortured to death for days or weeks.
Some people suffer mental or physical torments which seem to have no end. I knew someone who died of bone cancer, and was in pain which no medication could dull. I suspect he would happily have swapped it for 3 hours on a cross. I have never suffered too much physical pain, but I have suffered betrayals and the like (on two occasions of great pain and distress), which went on for months and years.
Unpleasant as it was, Christ's trial and crucifixion seems pretty tame in some ways. Certainly it was quite brief. Certainly one would expect something a bit more dramatic for the redemption of humanity.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
New Approach Needed
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
"Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world".
There was and is no torment that could compare to what Christ suffered on the Christ. Don't be too concerned about long it took - consider the nature of His suffering and sacrifice.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Stetson - Yes, Kingsley Amis clearly had the same thoughts. And I like the quote from Orwell; "I like the Church of England better than Our Lord."
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
There was and is no torment that could compare to what Christ suffered on the Christ. Don't be too concerned about long it took - consider the nature of His suffering and sacrifice.
Anything more than mere assertion to back that up?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
1. The mental anguish must have been huge, not just from being betrayed. If we accept that Christ was human as well as divine, then there must have been the very real dreadfulness of knowing that he was being killed without just cause. Even in times when justice could be said to be arbitrary and punishment cruel, we know that injustice was felt keenly: so it must have been in the time of Christ.
2. The physical sufferings of people who are crucified are well documented. On the whole people slowly suffocate since it is very difficult to exhale with outstretched arms, plus his shoulders will have dislocated so the torso would have hung down unsupported. In addition, raised CO2 levels would have caused the body's tissues to become acidic and start to kill their own cells.
As if that weren't enough, nailing through the back of the heel (the most likely site) with the legs bent makes it virtually impossible for a person to raise themselves.
So, was the suffering that bad? (I can't believe you really asked that question.) I think we can safely say YES.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't think Jesus gets into a "Mine was bigger than yours" competition. And I don't think the magnitude of his sufferings (though horrible) had to be on some scale (what scale?) measurably worse than that of any other individual to make them effective, or important, or of unspeakable worth. Where did that idea come from?
He did what was necessary to redeem us all. It doesn't matter if there is some particular individual who has objectively experienced more pain, or deeper betrayal, or whatever (how would you measure it, anyway?) It's not a competition, and that person is not Christ, anyway. There is nothing set down in the Scriptures or the universe as far as I'm aware that says "He who suffers most, wins."
Now the question of the title--was it really all that bad--OH HELL YES. How can that even be asked with a straight face?
And it didn't start on Palm Sunday. Rather, long before, back in Bethlehem.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
The spiritual anguish we can only guess at: bearing the sins of the world, being separated from the Father, etc.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I would say, if God was born an infant, that would have been far, far harder than Christ's death. Knowing what human life is like - good and bad - and choosing to go through the incarnation is much more amazing than death on a cross (thousands and thousands of people were killed that way by the Romans, it would have been a most unremarkable occurrence)
[ 23. March 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Yes, I am asking the question.
I am not suggesting it was a walk in the park, but how was it uniquely awful? And what does someone whose suffering lasts less than 24 hours have to say to someone whose suffering is protracted and seemingly without end. Read some of the accounts of torture in Chile under Pinochet, for example, or the British Army officer captured by the IRA in the 80s.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Stetson - Yes, Kingsley Amis clearly had the same thoughts. And I like the quote from Orwell; "I like the Church of England better than Our Lord."
I'm wondering where Orwell said that. In his essay on Yeats, he talks about "the profound hostility" of fascism "to the Christian ethical code". Given Orwell's pretty uncompromising hatred of fascism, I'd conclude that he has a high opinion of the teachings of Jesus.
Though I suppose he might have meant that he was unimpressed by the supernatural aspects of the Jesus story. Still, the quote in question sounds a little too "folsky" for Orwell's typical style.
W.B. Yeats
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I ultimately agree with Exclamation Mark about Jesus taking the sins of the whole world. Think about the implications of what Jesus is saying when he asks why God has forsaken him. Boogie also makes an excellent point about the incarnation.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Yes, I am asking the question.
I am not suggesting it was a walk in the park, but how was it uniquely awful? And what does someone whose suffering lasts less than 24 hours have to say to someone whose suffering is protracted and seemingly without end. Read some of the accounts of torture in Chile under Pinochet, for example, or the British Army officer captured by the IRA in the 80s.
As always, I think Lamb answered this well. It's not a competition, and the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is not dependent upon it being worse than anyone else's. Indeed, the "Jesus suffered so much worse than you" line of reasoning seems to set up a sort of blame-the-victim thing: you don't get to complain no matter how bad your suffering is because Jesus' was worse, so suck it up.
No. That's not the picture of Jesus we see in the gospels. He's not a "suck it up" kinda guy. He's not a "yeah, you think that's bad, wait'll you hear what happened/will happen to me..." kinda guy. He's the guy who healed all sorts of physical suffering. So, no, I don't think the point of Jesus' suffering was that we should just such it up and stop complaining about ours. And no, Jesus' suffering doesn't make mine or anyone else's less painful.
I think your question/ confusion is based on sloppy teaching on the church's part-- teaching a sort of default, unexamined penal substitutionary atonement in a "just so" matter does lend itself to this sort of quite reasonable question. But Scripture is much richer in the way it explains the atonement-- and exploring that richness really helps broaden the pov and get past this sorta thinking. In particular, ransom and Christus victor understandings of the atonement focus on the resurrection as much as the cross. Sure, an empty tomb doesn't make as snappy a symbol to hang around your neck-- but it is, after all, what Sunday's celebration is all about. And there the answer to the suffering of the world is not "mine was worse" but rather "I came to conquer sin and death"-- and along with that the hopeful anticipation that one day all suffering and death will finally be vanquished.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I come down on the personal side to this question. Not the questions as to whether flogging, mocking, crucifixion, psychological inevitability known in advance etc, are all as nasty as can be or not quite as nasty as some other deaths. But the question as to whether Jesus' life and death can be any guide, model and something I can identify with.
I wouldn't have understood this at all a decade ago: that to be really human is to suffer, and a person who has the role of supporting an empathizing with us has to have a real human understanding of it from experience -- a remarkable thing about the Jesus story is that he didn't get angry and nasty like I do with suffering and things that trigger me to recall suffering -- this is a core reason that I think the Christian story is worth something: we are shown how to live, suffer and die, and not revert to our selfish nasty nature. Whether or not we agree or disagree on the factual nature of the gospel/NT accounts of all of Jesus doings, i.e., the redemption, atonement, resurrection questions etc are not part of this in my thinking, and are separate issues.
I can accept the incarnational aspect of Jesus' suffering and dying as very useful myth and argue it as such because it juxtaposes the essential similarity between life and death.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I don't think you can weigh pain. To quote Solzhenitsyn, "to taste the sea only requires one gulp".
Christ is identified with all human suffering because He suffered.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
The Bible doesn't seem to concentrate on the physical agony of Christ so much as the humiliation of the cross (Mel Gibson *please* take note).
And I have always been disturbed by the comment of the penitent thief in Luke '...we have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds'.
And whilst I'm talking about things in the passion that confuse me, why were the disciples carrying swords in the garden of Gethsemane?
But I will still be preaching the fact that the cross is central to our faith and salvation.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think you can weigh pain. To quote Solzhenitsyn, "to taste the sea only requires one gulp".
Christ is identified with all human suffering because He suffered.
Quote stored. Very good!
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
For me it is interesting to note that Jesus was relational to the last.
His address to the Daughters of Jerusalem, "Father forgive them...", his word to the thief, "Mother here is your son" etc. The only time he thought of himself was his statement "I am thirsty"
He never saw himself as really alone on the Cross.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
So is the point that Jesus was identifying with us, with our suffering; but that doesn't mean we have to identify with him and his suffering, or see his suffering as identifying with our suffering?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Is the detailed nature of Christ's physical suffering really the central message? The Gospel accounts don't seem to bear that out. I think real emphasis is laid on the humility with which He faced/faces it.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is the detailed nature of Christ's physical suffering really the central message? The Gospel accounts don't seem to bear that out. I think real emphasis is laid on the humility with which He faced/faces it.
I don't know. I guess what I was really questioning is how one is often told, when suffering, that Christ 'understands' because he suffered too. I have yet to hear anyone who is humble being told that Christ understands humility!
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
I have heard 'pastoral' comments as in the opening post. It is meant to offer reassurance that God understands. But it is deeply flawed.
There are plenty of things Jesus didn't experience in the incarnation, by being in a male body he didn't know pregnancy for one, and it is true his suffering was horrible but also true that others face a longer physical endurance of pain.
We need to step back from the direct comparisons and the need to match like for like. God understanding us and our needs/pains/struggles etc is not dependent on Jesus having had a comparable experience.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Avila: God understanding us and our needs/pains/struggles etc is not dependent on Jesus having had a comparable experience.
Not for every specific experience perhaps, but the fact that He has been human is significant for me in this regard.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Avila: God understanding us and our needs/pains/struggles etc is not dependent on Jesus having had a comparable experience.
Not for every specific experience perhaps, but the fact that He has been human is significant for me in this regard.
Agree, the incarnation, and the taste of human life and pain and joy is important. It just doesn't need to be a like for like experience.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like asking "Surely being tortured to death isn't really all that bad?" is a sign of how degraded our discourse on subjects like this has become. If someone like John Yoo or Dick Cheney were to advance this argument, most of us would be appalled, and rightly so.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Avila: Agree, the incarnation, and the taste of human life and pain and joy is important. It just doesn't need to be a like for like experience.
We're in agreement.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Croesus quote:
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like asking "Surely being tortured to death isn't really all that bad?" is a sign of how degraded our discourse on subjects like this has become.
Yup! That says it all for me, too! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
When one suffers pain or trouble or betrayal, it is a commonplace to be told 'Well Christ suffered that, so he understands'. But what did Christ suffer?
The traditional narrative has Christ arrested on the Thursday evening and dead by the middle of Friday afternoon. Sure, crucifixion is a most horrible way to die, and being let down by your closest friends is awful. But it was all over in quite a brief period of time. Some people have been, and are, tortured to death for days or weeks.
Some people suffer mental or physical torments which seem to have no end. I knew someone who died of bone cancer, and was in pain which no medication could dull. I suspect he would happily have swapped it for 3 hours on a cross. I have never suffered too much physical pain, but I have suffered betrayals and the like (on two occasions of great pain and distress), which went on for months and years.
Unpleasant as it was, Christ's trial and crucifixion seems pretty tame in some ways. Certainly it was quite brief. Certainly one would expect something a bit more dramatic for the redemption of humanity.
Keep an eye on YouTube over the next few days and you might get an answer...
Good Friday Crucifixion
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Well Binaculus, are you volunteering to go through the experience Christ went through so we can judge how much you suffered? I think you've been watching too much of Life of Brian.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Can anyone really watch too much Life of Brian?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I have heard 'pastoral' comments as in the opening post. It is meant to offer reassurance that God understands. But it is deeply flawed.
There are plenty of things Jesus didn't experience in the incarnation, by being in a male body he didn't know pregnancy for one, and it is true his suffering was horrible but also true that others face a longer physical endurance of pain.
We need to step back from the direct comparisons and the need to match like for like. God understanding us and our needs/pains/struggles etc is not dependent on Jesus having had a comparable experience.
That doesn't just relate to whether Jesus can sympathise with our suffering unless He suffered in exactly the same way. That notion undermines any sort of pastoral care we might offer others. Now, it is true that in the depths of our suffering we may turn to the people who come to sit beside us and declare "You can't help. You know nothing of what I'm suffering, you've never experienced this", and quite often they are right - we do not really know what they are suffering. That doesn't mean we can't say "You're right, I've never experienced what you are suffering. But, I've experienced something similar but not as bad. I've known others experience suffering in other ways. I can sit here silently and hold your hand knowing something of what you are going through".
The same is true of Jesus. He didn't experience every form of human suffering. He experienced enough to be qualified to know something about what we're going through and sit there holding our hand.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can anyone really watch too much Life of Brian?
Only if it prevents you from watching too much Holy Grail.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would say, if God was born an infant, that would have been far, far harder than Christ's death. Knowing what human life is like - good and bad - and choosing to go through the incarnation is much more amazing than death on a cross (thousands and thousands of people were killed that way by the Romans, it would have been a most unremarkable occurrence)
It's the unique nature of His crucifixion which makes the difference.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What was unique about it? Apart from Him?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's the unique nature of His crucifixion which makes the difference.
Do you mean with relation to the fact he was carrying the sins of the world?
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Well Binaculus, are you volunteering to go through the experience Christ went through so we can judge how much you suffered? I think you've been watching too much of Life of Brian.
No, I am not. But if you look at what I said, i suggested that there are people (like the person who dies of bone cancer) who would probably gladly swap their suffering for 3 hours on the cross.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
[T]here are people (like the person who dies of bone cancer) who would probably gladly swap their suffering for 3 hours on the cross.
The two experiences are simply not commensurable, even in some "hedonic calculus" reckoning - this kind of "swapping" isn't even meaningfully coherent. "Units of pain" are seldom comparable across different circumstances as there are so many things that make up the felt experience of them, things which have little to do with the pain itself.
And I must say that I find this kind of argumentative line deeply distasteful in this week of all weeks.
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on
:
I am wondering why you seem to think it's a competition.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like asking "Surely being tortured to death isn't really all that bad?" is a sign of how degraded our discourse on subjects like this has become. If someone like John Yoo or Dick Cheney were to advance this argument, most of us would be appalled, and rightly so.
Well, it isn't just you. Some comparisons really are just odious.
Sometimes it has seemed to me that our culture has an obsession with measuring as a vital and necessary part of our understanding. So I guess it's natural in that context to think that pain can be managed, measured, somehow objectivised. And in medical terms there is of course a real value in looking at the way our nervous systems work and how the experience of intolerable pain can be mitigated or even removed. Some marvellous work has been done in improving pain management for folks unfortunate enough to suffer from chronic, incurable and terminal illnesses which amongst other effects produce very great pain.
As a side issue, I found the comment on men and childbirth interesting. A few years ago I went through an awful six months before surgery, suffering from the pain caused by gallstones. When it struck, it was just intolerable. The agonising pain could last for a very long time, even strong painkillers could not remove it, it just had to be born. I was chatting it over with a good friend at church and observed that maybe I was just being a wimpy man; after all I'd never given birth to a child. She replied that she'd done that and had also had gallstones. Her observation was comforting. "Oh, in my experience, gallstone pain was just as painful as the pains of childbirth, but there was a good deal less point in it."
It helps to know folks who have walked the same journey, but folks can be empathic, supportive and helpful without having done that. And we all have different pain thresholds. Another reason not to make odious comparisons.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sometimes it has seemed to me that our culture has an obsession with measuring as a vital and necessary part of our understanding. So I guess it's natural in that context to think that pain can be managed, measured, somehow objectivised. And in medical terms there is of course a real value in looking at the way our nervous systems work and how the experience of intolerable pain can be mitigated or even removed. Some marvellous work has been done in improving pain management for folks unfortunate enough to suffer from chronic, incurable and terminal illnesses which amongst other effects produce very great pain.
Well, sorry, that's the fault of those who want to paint the suffering of our Lord as the worst-possible thing that could happen to anyone ever, period. And those who seem to want to pointlessly fix their gaze on every blow (looking at you, Mel).
It is a simple fact that there are many who have experienced worse deaths - sadly many who have experienced worse deaths at the hand of Christians and the church.
Now I accept that there must have been a level of anguish normal people who were not the incarnate third-person of the Trinity could not have experienced during long drawn out torture. If that's the argument being made, then fine.
But if we're using language to imply that the physical anguish our Lord experienced was the ultimate in pain and suffering, then that's just wrong.
Which is not to say anything about Holy Week or the value of reflecting on the events or anything else. The suggestion that one should not be discussing this is pretty bonkers - if people reading this don't like it, then don't get involved in the discussion.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A few years ago I went through an awful six months before surgery, suffering from the pain caused by gallstones. When it struck, it was just intolerable. The agonising pain could last for a very long time, even strong painkillers could not remove it, it just had to be born. I was chatting it over with a good friend at church and observed that maybe I was just being a wimpy man; after all I'd never given birth to a child. S
I have had both (gallstones once and childbirth twice). The gallstone pain lasted about 4 hours each time then passed off. The childbirth pain lasted 20 hours each time, then sorted itself out. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The gallstone pain was worse, far worse.
But, like you say, all these comparisons are quite pointless. Jesus suffered physically and mentally - of that there is no doubt.
He chose to suffer, he didn't have to go into Jerusalem. He chose to die as he knew very well that his teachings wouldn't be accepted and what the penalty would be. I expect he thought he'd die by stoning.
But I don't know why we major on His death. It's His birth which is the mindblowing, unbelievable thing imo.
I wish a symbol of torture wasn't the symbol of the Christian faith.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
people who were not the incarnate third-person of the Trinity
...the incarnate second person of the Trinity...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: The same is true of Jesus. He didn't experience every form of human suffering. He experienced enough to be qualified to know something about what we're going through and sit there holding our hand.
I see what you're getting at, but I'd like to go a bit further than that.
I'm rather taken up with the idea that every time we make someone suffer, God is there, suffering. I think this idea comes from Bonhoeffer? Or is it Moltmann?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
...the incarnate second person of the Trinity...
Sorry, slip of the keys.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
...the incarnate second person of the Trinity...
Sorry, slip of the keys.
If the persons of the Trinity would just stay still instead of walking around all the time …
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's the unique nature of His crucifixion which makes the difference.
Do you mean with relation to the fact he was carrying the sins of the world?
Yes
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I expect he thought he'd die by stoning.
But I don't know why we major on His death. It's His birth which is the mindblowing, unbelievable thing imo.
I wish a symbol of torture wasn't the symbol of the Christian faith.
He knew what his death would be ("lifted up")
There's a lot of things in this world that aren't in line with what we want. The cross is one such. Yes his birth is mindblowing but without the cross his incarnation is meaningless. His birth on its own doesn't save us.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I expect he thought he'd die by stoning.
But I don't know why we major on His death. It's His birth which is the mindblowing, unbelievable thing imo.
I wish a symbol of torture wasn't the symbol of the Christian faith.
He knew what his death would be ("lifted up")
I would imagine the gospel writer back-wrote that bit in after the fact. (fulfilling prophesy and all that)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: The same is true of Jesus. He didn't experience every form of human suffering. He experienced enough to be qualified to know something about what we're going through and sit there holding our hand.
I see what you're getting at, but I'd like to go a bit further than that.
I'm rather taken up with the idea that every time we make someone suffer, God is there, suffering. I think this idea comes from Bonhoeffer? Or is it Moltmann?
Is it not the implicit in theism itself? As opposed to, say, deism?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I expect he thought he'd die by stoning.
But I don't know why we major on His death. It's His birth which is the mindblowing, unbelievable thing imo.
I wish a symbol of torture wasn't the symbol of the Christian faith.
He knew what his death would be ("lifted up")
I would imagine the gospel writer back-wrote that bit in after the fact. (fulfilling prophesy and all that)
Why? Do you rule out in principle that Christ's death actually fulfilled the prophesy, and that He knew it would?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why? Do you rule out in principle that Christ's death actually fulfilled the prophesy, and that He knew it would?
Yes I do. I don't believe in prophesy - it's no different from astrology imo - but that's a tangent too far from the OP and would require another thread, I would think.
[ 24. March 2016, 15:29: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
To me, of all the possible outcomes of Holy Week, either being crowned King or being Crucified seem the only two options. The whole thing seems orchestrated to cause a reaction from the Romans as much as the religious authorities in Jerusalem, and AFAIU, crucifixion was the usual punishment for insurrection.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Boogie quote:
Yes I do. I don't believe in prophesy - it's no different from astrology imo
I see the point you're making, Boogie, though I think you overdo it. I agree with you to the extent that there is usually sufficient variety in earlier scriptures to find material that fit a number of possible outcomes; and the case of Jesus it involves conflating Messianic prophecies with Isaiah's Suffering Servant, which most Jews would, and still do, regard as oxymoronic.
On the other hand, one can predict likely outcomes from previous behaviour, as Jesus did when he placed himself in the tradition of persecuted prophets. In the parable of the Tenants of the Vineyard, for example, Christ predicts that against the wishes of his father the that he will be murdered. Such predicting is sometimes referred to as prophesying, and is far from being an irrationally anticipated or extra-terrestrially determined event, as in astrology.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, sorry, that's the fault of those who want to paint the suffering of our Lord as the worst-possible thing that could happen to anyone ever, period.
No, you missed my point. I have no time for weighing suffering, nor do I have time for wallowing in gruesomeness.
Lets try it this way. If you're going through extreme suffering in your own life, do you really think it matters if someone else rates it as top of the list of suffering anyone has experienced, or third, or twentythird? Does this kind of league tabling increase or decrease the empathic connection?
Basically, I think such weighing and weighting is fundamentally useless in coming alongside anyone who is going through the mill. Surely the most important thing is not to trivialise anyone's suffering on the grounds that either they aren't the only ones - or someone else has had it far far worse? What good does that do?
[ 24. March 2016, 18:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Maybe the point of Christ's death, then, was its very ordinariness. He died the death of a common criminal, alongside common criminals, in a peripheral bit of the Roman Empire. Nothing very dramatic - no immolation in the Forum in Rome, with Emperor and Senate looking on, or anything like that.
Or am I still missing the point?
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on
:
Originally posted by Boogie
[/qb] quote:
I wish a symbol of torture wasn't the symbol of the Christian faith. [/QB]
I used this sentiment as a meditation during the Stations of the Cross this morning, specifically why was it chosen as a symbol of a loving God and new life? To us it is an historical curiosity - we don't crucify people any more. But, If you think about it, to the early believers It was not just a symbol of torture, it was a foreign, degrading and horrendous instrument of torture, used daily by a foreign, degrading and horrendous invading force, who was totally opposed to everything Jewish. And yet, they chose the cross (along with the fish) as a symbol of The Way. There must have been a reason, something that the cross represented about the life and teaching they were following.
I have my ideas about that, but I would be interested in why you think they may have done this, Boogie. It seems to me to be pointing to something vitally important about the life we are called upon to live.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
....But when did the cross become the predominant Christian symbol? Am I mistaken in thinking that the sign of the fish predated the cross? Am I wrong in thinking that in early Christian art the depiction of Christ as a shepherd was more common than his crucifixion?
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on
:
I don't know ( hopefully someone on the ship does!), but given Paul's emphasis on the death and resurrection of Our Lord, I would think it would be fairly early.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
From Wikipedia
quote:
During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography, as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution and Christians were reluctant to use it. ... The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century.
The earliest depiction of the Christian Cross may be the Herculaneum Cross which was found in the city of Herculaneum, which was entombed in pyroclastic material along with Pompeii during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79.
...
However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next, and by the fact that by the early 3rd century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον (the Lord's sign) to mean the cross ... and his contemporary Tertullian could designate the body of Christian believers as crucis religiosi, i.e. "devotees of the Cross". In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
....But when did the cross become the predominant Christian symbol? Am I mistaken in thinking that the sign of the fish predated the cross? Am I wrong in thinking that in early Christian art the depiction of Christ as a shepherd was more common than his crucifixion?
Was it the early Roman Church who bigged up the Cross? After all , I think they took on the Christian faith as an appendage to already well tried and tested Roman militarism. Themes of martyrdom and wot not would have been encouraged back then. Maybe not much relevance now, well not to the majority anyway.
The Gnostic gospel of Thomas makes no mention of the Cross at all.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I think Gethsemane is the vital point in understanding what is going on.
In Gethsemane, Jesus surveys the path that is opening up before him, and prays to be released from it. Ultimately, he embraces it, saying "not my will, but Your will be done".
By doing this, he expresses God's solidarity with all of us, an expression which started with his birth, and comes to its fulfillment in the gift of the holy spirit at Pentecost, having carried our humanity into heaven at the Ascension.
This is all of a piece, a moment in a relationship, and must be put back into that context to be understood. Otherwise, we get stuck in debates about comparative degrees of pain which get nowhere and degrade everyone.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Regarding the cross as a symbol, it seems as though almost every culture uses some form of a cross as a symbol. It can represent the sun, the earth, the four cardinal directions, and many other things. Aside from the obvious Christian connections—the sacrificial death of Jesus and his command that we take up our own cross—I think part of the reason that the cross gained prominence as the Christian symbol has to do with the fact that there is something about two lines crossing at perpendicular angles that speaks to something very deep in the human imagination.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
I think the earliest depiction of the cross *may* be an anti-Christian piece of grafitti: 'Alexamenos worships his God'. There's a link to Wikipedia here:
The fact that Thomas doesn't mention the crucifixion just tells us that Thomas's gospel is sub-Christian.
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
No longer apprentice! But failed with the link. Lets try again!
here
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
No longer apprentice! But failed with the link. Lets try again!
here
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Is this one working?
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on
:
Thank you, Stetson.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trickydicky:
The fact that Thomas doesn't mention the crucifixion just tells us that Thomas's gospel is sub-Christian.
Of all the 'sub-Christian' offerings since the violent death of an itinerant preacher from Nazareth, I personally wouldn't even add the Gnostic Gospels to that list.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
....But when did the cross become the predominant Christian symbol? Am I mistaken in thinking that the sign of the fish predated the cross? Am I wrong in thinking that in early Christian art the depiction of Christ as a shepherd was more common than his crucifixion?
The fish was certainly an early symbol, and made an easy way for Christians to identify each other - the 2 curved lines, overlapping at one end to form a fish's tail could easily and idly be drawn by a toe in sand or dirt, by a finger dipped in wine, or a myriad other ways. A quick wipe would conceal it from hostile eyes.
Back to the pain. There's no point in weighing up pain. It's too subjective for a start. I have much higher pain levels than my sisters - perhaps being a boy rather than a girl when we were growing up 60 and more years ago contributed. Then the gall stones vs childbirth could reflect the joy of giving birth diminishing the pain level felt.
The crucifixion of Christ has at least 2 elements. The first is the infliction of severe pain before death. If it were only the death that was sought, a comparatively quick beheading would work, or drinking hemlock. Then, it was the punishment for common criminals and so reflect the humility of Christ in going forward.
Boogie your comment about prophesy: you may not accept prophesy from someone wholly human. Would you accept it from someone who was also wholly divine?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I don't know why I am sticking up for someone who seems to have forgotten me, but here I go again:
According to the Apostle's Creed, Jesus didn't just suffer and die on the cross. (And yeah, when people refer to crucifixion as "the worst torture imaginable," I just figure they've never read up on what Ted Bundy did to his victims. ) After dying, he descended into Hell. And evidently stayed there till his ressurection.
Forget timelines for a minute, because obviously Hell, if it exists, is outside of time. It is also going to be the end point of all evil, all pain, all terror, all sorrow. By suffering, dying, and submitting to Hell, Jesus wasn't experiencing his own pain, but Pain itself. The generator from which pain comes, and the repository of the pain which evil causes. In a sense, he wasn't just identifying with that abducted child who is tortured for a week before she dies, but creating a way to actually be with her.*
Some people are lucky enough to have a sense of this--"throughout my internment in Dachau, I always knew God was with me"-- and some just don't. IMO this has nothing to do with how close to God the actually person is, just how they are wired.
* by "creating* I don't mean to say God was never able to be with people in suffering before Jesus, I am saying the Passion of Jesus (along with the subsequent narrative of Pentecost) created a narrative which demonstrated that reality- the same way a couple doesn't fall in love because marriage happens, but rather marriage is an acting out of that reality.
[ 26. March 2016, 00:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
a remarkable thing about the Jesus story is that he didn't get angry and nasty like I do with suffering ...
Except at fig trees.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I guess what I was really questioning is how one is often told, when suffering, that Christ 'understands' because he suffered too.
I'm failing to see why 'understanding' others' suffering requires you to suffer exactly the same amount, in the same way, as they are. If you were in horrible pain and someone came to comfort you, would you say, "No, bugger off, I know you only had the really screaming pain of cancer for about a year, and then you had the surgery and got better, so you can't possibly know my suffering, so get the hell out of here, you charlatan." I don't really think so.
The key thing is that God became a human being -- entered into our vale of tears -- and tasted what our suffering is like first-hand. Which is mind-boggling.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can anyone really watch too much Life of Brian?
As long as they're keeping the bathroom clean and the clothes washed, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Maybe the point of Christ's death, then, was its very ordinariness. He died the death of a common criminal, alongside common criminals, in a peripheral bit of the Roman Empire. Nothing very dramatic - no immolation in the Forum in Rome, with Emperor and Senate looking on, or anything like that.
Or am I still missing the point?
I'd say this is far closer to the point. He didn't come to be superlative. The best little Jewish kid at spinning the dreidel, the fastest runner in the young carpenters olympics, the most suffering of all sufferers, the best bread and fish chef, the best vintner. He was in all things like us -- not like the most superlative of us. The superlative types aren't very much like us at all, really.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
mousethief - you nearly put me off with your first line. But the rest delivers. Kelly Alves - utterly mad as a box of frogs, but I liked it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
I am humbled.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I knew you would be. Talitha kum.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
From the ridiculous, to the sublime:
"Right NOW, on this, Resurrection Sunday, Jesus says: "Blessed are you, Stephen Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.… How utterly, sublimely, radically TRUE! THANK YOU Steve. Thank you Father. This is a complete endorsement of the Incarnation. Of the reality of the DIVINE in human, in A human, in humanity - for His Spirit is poured out on ALL flesh. I have lived all my life with the same false teaching. No more. Christ is risen. Nunc dimittis."
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I was contemplating this during the sermon this morning (what, was I supposed to be listening to the preacher?). We had been looking at Isaiah 53, and my eyes fell on quote:
he has suffered, ...
and he will bear their iniquities.
... For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Now, I came to faith in an evangelical setting and still consider there to be some value in Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and my thoughts this morning were following a chain that (to me) makes sense within that framework. Perhaps there still is some value in these ramblings to others who do not accept that framework. And, no, I am not going to discuss PSA here so don't even go there.
We know the Bible tells us that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23 and Proverbs 10:16 - for some reason no one seems to quote Proverbs in this context, I thought I'd remedy that). In taking our sins and iniquities needed to only pay that cost, he only needed to die for us so that we could rise with him. To carry our sins and iniquities he did not need to suffer at all. So why did he accept crucifixion as the will of his father? What was the gain from that suffering?
I know evangelicals often dwell on the suffering of the cross. Even before Mel made that film, I can remember evangelistic events where the evangelist produced a roman nail, and in considerable detail described every blow of the hammer that drove a nail like that through Christ's wrist, the hours hanging on that cross barely able to breath.
As I said, I'm in the context of PSA. And, in that context there is a strong symbolism that Christ died the death of a criminal, despite being innocent of any crime. But, why not come in a society where the death penalty came through a quick chop to remove head from body? Or, through a lethal injection? Even the short agony of hanging. Why did he come to a culture where he would be crucified, one of the most brutal and painful forms of execution ever devised? Indeed, why force the authorities to have him tried under Roman law, why not arrange for a quick stoning or a shove off a clifftop?
So, I'm left with no reason why PSA would require a crucifixion. And, still not understanding why evangelists (from within that understanding of atonement) would consider the suffering, rather than just the death, of Christ to be important - looking back, it was never something that made sense, in my feeble attempts to share the good news it was never something that I felt I could use.
So, the question is there. Why did the death of Christ have to involve suffering at all?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As I said first, some years ago, in trepidation: apology. Atonement works BOTH ways.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
PSA is OUR story. Jesus FULL humanity, as in feeling alone on the Cross, embraced, in full, human, weakness and ignorance OUR story.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0