If Jesus didn't die on the cross then.... | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

If Jesus didn't die on the cross then....

You're presuming that everyone here is Christian. That, or people are amenable to religious discussion.

All I'm going to add is that I'm happy this hasn't erupted into a flamewar yet.

I do not see how the question presumes that everyone here is Christian. I elaborated further regarding this point in my previous response to SpilledMilk.
This is posted in the 'Philosophy and Religion' forum. If people don't want to participate in this thread, they don't have to.
 
The crucifixion was there to show the ultimate rejection of Christ - the locking out of the good, as I put it. The act portrayed the willingness of the people to let him be killed, and his own willingness to be crucified. What happened after the initiation of the act is irrelevant to its significance.

Having not traced the thread's progression, I'm unsure as to what exactly is being implied by the question. Could you elaborate, and phrase the issue in a way that doesn't presuppose an understanding of the issue?
 
[MENTION=4313]lenina[/MENTION]

Hi. I'm asking this question of yours "if Jesus was crucified and survived the process... then what was the crucifixion about?"

This question of yours would be an interesting one "if Jesus didn't die on the cross then why was this crucifixion story made up and how has it served the purposes of those that made it up?". My question was inspired by people who believe that he was crucified, but didn't die, so my question takes the position that there was a crucifiction but he didn't die on the cross.

This question of yours would be an interesting one, "if Jesus didn't die on the cross then why did people start thinking he did, rather than thinking he died in any other way".

This question of yours, "what significance does death by crucifixion hold over death by other means?", I think is the 'crux' of the matter ie "If Jesus didn't die on the cross, then what was the crucifixation about?"

Thanks for your clarifying responses. :)
 
Jesus made his entire life very much like a poem using symbolism to create his religion. He, the Son of God, is the greatest example of the perfect human being. There are additionaly two other deities which Jesus talks about. One, God the Father, one could imagine simply being God, the Universe, etc. The second, the Holy Spirit, something somewhat new created by Him. You see before he died on the Cross he told his disciples that the He would send his "Holy Spirit" to those who followed him to save them.

What you're really seeing I generally look at as the mass therapy of humanity. You see Jesus was an emotionally intelligent genious. If there was a test for such, he'd probably surpass the majority of the top 1%. By instilling an example by which to live, himself, he created a way to change; way to be a better self, your perfect self. Additionally, he told people to call on God the Father for help when it was needed to send His Holy Spirit. This creates a form of unconditional strength and resilience to rely on when shit goes south for lack of a better term. And the Holy Spirit, subconciously, gives them "holy" power, faith, hope, etc. even when there isn't any reason for them to have any. Basically by being the perfect example and creating His religion, just like he used parables (metaphors) in His teachings, he metaphorically developed away to keep people emotionally at their best when there is absolutely no reason to. To help those when there is no possibly way to do so. This isn't co-dependency, it's a belief. A belief is internal, and through this belief people are better off because of it. Some people might say it's a trick but in reality it might just be the best damn trick a person can be fooled by. It's a foolproof emotional resiliency so shockingly adapted that when it appearances at it's best it's mood is spread to others and they too can share in this incredibly feeling.

Not only did he do all this, but he also tied it into Judaism. You see the Hebrews used to sacrifice birds, sheep, etc. to redeem them of their sins and take the place of the punishment of death they deserve from God. But being the "Perfect Lamb" Jesus died on the cross (whether he did or not) as the Son of God to take away the sins and horrible past of His followers forever, instead of constantly having to redeem themselves. Jesus realized that people always make mistakes and by saying he died on the cross for their sins like one would sacrifice a lamb, he made it so people don't have to regret their future mistakes, don't have to redeem themselves, don't need to fall back to their old lives. Instead they can continue on to be their perfect selves, forgive themselves as well as others, and continue to show compassion.

The cross is meerly another form of symbolism related to Judaism to create an emotional resilience. It's not anything special in itself besides the fact that it was an incredibly dishonorable and horribly painful way to die which was famous at the time. And through this pain and dishonor, Jesus beared the punishment that one would feel thy deserve for what they've done so that the person desiring to change can simply be the beautiful person they desire to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
If He didnt die there would be no point or there would be some major changes to the way things are supposed to be in that regard, spiritually speaking.

I find that a really interesting response. Could you elaborate, please? Especially regarding the latter part "...or there would be some major changes to the way things are supposed to be in that regard, spiritually speaking".
 
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. -- 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

That is the answer to your question from the scriptures. By denying the cross, the power of God is denied.

The question to you now is what/who do you believe? By the way, I'm not the One waiting for an answer.
 
I find that a really interesting response. Could you elaborate, please? Especially regarding the latter part "...or there would be some major changes to the way things are supposed to be in that regard, spiritually speaking".

No because you wouldn't answer my question that I posed to you and this conversation is very one sided. You'll need to offer more of yourself to get more out of me in this regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow
I have no problem with random philosophical discussion, but the assertion that Jesus did not die on the cross (wherever the origin) is/was a dodgy act of historical revisionism, motivated as much by politics than anything else, that measures up in no way with modern scholarship on the subject. In other words, the idea is rather fantastic and pretty much dismissable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow
In order to be our example, Jesus had to have been human. That means he had to have been born and die as a human. He didn't do anything that a human could not do. This is evidenced by the apostles performing greater miracles than Jesus ever did once they too had the Holy Spirit after Pentecost. Read Acts and it's plain as day. At the last supper the apostles railed and said "what are we going to do without you?" and Jesus said "miracles greater than I have done". They were dumbfounded by that.

While he was in his Earthly vessel, Jesus was the example of what a human could be - with the power of the Holy Spirit.

However, humanity has an unclean spirit and (before the Resurrection of Jesus) could only enter into the Holy Spirit after extremely reverential prayer, fasting, and sacrifice... only the high priest, and only for a brief moment in the 'holiest of holies'. We were not able to hold the Holy Spirit within ourselves because of our sinful nature. We cannot connect with God's holiness. It's impossible. The two are toxic to one another.

Jesus' sacrifice removed that barrier by sanctifying us with his love, and providing a covering over humanity.

"I am one with my Father, and my Father is one with me. Now, you and I are one. What the Father gives unto me, so shall I give to you." His sacrifice created a spiritual conduit through him so that humanity could be again connected to God, and that means having access to the power of the Holy Spirit - miraculous spiritual power. Without this, Jesus is just another philosopher. With it, the meaning is entirely changed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: willow
The question is self contraditory. If he didn't die on the cross, then there was no crucifixion of Jesus by definition.

Did you mistype, and perhaps meant, "If Jesus didn't die on the cross FOR OUR SINS"????

First off, I'm not here to change anyone's religion. If any individuals in here love Jesus, more power to ya. However, since you have directly inquired, this is how I see it:
A historical Jesus existed, and he was executed via crucifixion by the Romans, who basically were putting to death the Zealots and assundry Rabble Rousers that were creating social unrest and wanting to rid the country of the Roman occupiers.

Second edition edit: Ahhh if I had read the entire thread first, I would have seen the later clarification "if jesus were crucified but didn't die." I believe this is the Muslim position. With all respect for the good decent muslims in the world, I just don't find this historically tenable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willow
The question did not ask about the crucifixion. It asked about the crucifixation. Did no one notice the subtle barb in the question?

I suppose we are expected to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that spelling is a problem and there is neither spell check or a dictionary available or we could assume the barb is deliberate.
 
This question is being posted on multiple forums. I'm not confused at all.
 
Ban him.