From Carrier (2006):

We already know that crucifixion was a popular form of capital punishment in the centuries before and after the common era ... and since it was associated with other resurrecting deities, we can see the interplay of myth, contemporaneous context and the use of the dramatic.

The quesiton I find more interesting is why did God have to live life as a man to fix a problem he created in the first place (original sin)?  Couldn't he have just snapped his finger?  It's interesting how not-well-thought-out Christian mythology is ...

There is a different between "not well thought out by Christianity" and "not well thought out by you".  The former would require some sort of objective way of testing the assertion, the latter would not.

"God" did not create original sin (according to some followers of Christian Theology).. "God", perhaps, can be attributed the creation of "sin" as the logical opposite of whatever is "not sin"-- but "original sin" (I believe) points to man's first exploration into sin.. this was a choice made possible by God's allowance of freewill (once again, according to christian theology).

In any case.. why did God "have to live life as a man to fix a problem"?  If his purpose was to fix a problem (of sin and evil) at that immediate point in time.. I think it probably objectively failed.. since we still have "sin" and "evil".  If his purpose was to "present an example of the lengths God would take to commune with man on his (man's) chosen level" then.. i think it's a bit more complicaited.

I realize you may not accept some of the premises I am using here.. but-- they are, nevertheless, premises with no measure of "testible proof" as of yet.. therefore it would just be a matter of IF you wish to accept the premises whether the deductions are deductions you can make.. or are illogical according to other necessary premises.

edit: I have a problem *with* rabbit-trailing ... as in I do it and perhaps others think its rude ...

Heh.. and I don't find it rude.  However, this thread isn't mine.. so.. mouse might.  Who knows.

Rhad, 

The metanarrative I was referring to was not the Bible in total, but the thread from Adam to Jesus, that the sins for which Jesus was dying for was the original sin of Adam (and subsequently all the sins that have ever been committed) and that his death provided the necessary sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin (which, again, started with Adam/Eve) from then on. 

Earlier, you pulled an interesting manuever, stating that Jesus' goal was perhaps not necessarily the forgiveness of sins, but 

 
This argument, while lacking any sort of verisimilitude, does take care of an interesting problem: namely that Adam, the first sinner, did not exist.  (Of course, we here at the RRS don't believe sin exists either, but for the sake of the argument ...)

I just wonder then, do you believe there was an Adam?  Do you believe Jesus existed at least in part to die for the forgiveness of sin?  What evidence is there that sin exists?  and could death exist before sin?  Just curious about your positionality before we get on with a discussion - that is, if you'd be interested in discussing this.

You'll have to pardon me - verisimilitude is my word of the day.  I was trying to find a place to throw it in ... maybe the word verifiability would have been better.  What I meant is, I don't think its possible to verify Jesus' goal per se - unless you'all are right in which case I'd have to quickly ask before sent to eternal punishment ...  The idea that He came down to commune with man on man's terms, to show his love, willingness, etc. seems more like a philosophical interpretation because it is not explicitly mentioned in scripture, at least not to my knowledge.  To be honest, I kind of like that idea more the "dying for our sins" idea ... it humanizes God's intentions in a way the established notion of Jesus (sinless, perfect) never could, at leats for me.  Jesus was always on par with the other members of the trinity in this way - he was far away and I could not identify with him ...

As for positionality, that's a term left over from cultural studies class junior year - a lot of bell hooks, Paolo Friere and Stuart Hall ...  I was just curious where you're coming from philosophically, theologically, what tradition do you represent, are you male, female, upper-middle class, working class, white, black, gay, transgendered? ... that's positionality.  I hope you don't mind, but you sound like a Patrick Henry University theology/philosophy major and I wanted to see if I was close.

I was born and raised in New Haven, Connecticut. 

My mother is Italian American Catholic (but she just converted to Judaism), my father is 7/8ths Italian, 1/8th Irish and what I could only describe as a pantheist (think Einsteinian religion). 

I was raised Catholic, became an atheist/materialist by age 12, became evangelical when I was 21 after an extremely instense conversion experience, started attending 3 or 4 churchs, mostly Anglo-Catholic/Episcopal and am now a 24 year old atheist (well, 24 next wednesday).

My family is middle class - my parents are divorced and have new, respective someones - I have 8 siblings (2 of which are from both my parents).

I attended a libertarian high school, a small liberal arts college in New York City and have worked in publishing since last summer.  On days when I wear a tie, you could call me a yuppie.  I generally vote democratic but like libertarians on social issues.

I think I brought up the whole positionality thing is because I'm curious with the ways that position informs our belief systems ... also knowing someones denomination helps when discussing nuances of their view on scripture.

 

Human force has brought about a lot of death to a lot of people, noble and otherwise. Is it special that humans brought death to Jesus? 

i can think of many people who would deserve it less. children would deserve it less. no one needs to experience crucifixion..?

would god sending his son/self counterpart be essential to his character?  in other words, was it that difficult of a choice to make? i can fathom a lot of decent people who would do the same (that is, sacrifice themselves to save humanity); is it a stretch that the best person in the world would? 

That's fine that you think there are people that deserve it less-- once again, I'm speaking through a theological prism and IF Jesus was perfect, how could someone be 'deserve it less' unless he was 'more than perfect'?

Granted.. I am making a connection between 'perfection' and 'deserving' of death.. which is a dangerous thing to do.  Personally I would like to believe that no one is 'deserving' of death in the sense that most people use the word...

Nonetheless, from an objective standpoint (a legal one at least).. 'wrongness' does correlate with 'deserviness for X'.

But even if you would contend that someone is 'as perfect' as Jesus.. there is still the added part of 'he was the only person who didn't necessarily have to experience what he experienced', death in this case.


Depends on what you mean by 'essential'.  Only so far as he 'willed' it.


Hmm.. this is a pretty big jump you're asking me to make with regards to putting myself in God's position.. yet, I will try to answer as I always do:

I believe it was not a difficult choice for him to make, although as a man, it was probably relatively more difficult for him to live through-- as it is for us all.


Once again.. I think we have two different concepts of what his life was meant to accomplish here on earth.  Was it "to save humanity" or merely to "commune with humanity in a way humanity understood and could hold onto as they moved into a more ambivalent future." or.. perhaps some other?  I don't think it was as simple as this.

Plus.. to compare man to God in terms of 'willingness' to 'sacrifice' X, is a misleading comparison since no man, conceptually, would have the existence that God did before he became man.


I believe this contention was addressed in previous posts.. or perhaps it was in the "atheist to tears" one.

In anycase, to make it shorter. What glory did "God" gain that "God" already did not have?

As for "nothing was sacrificed".  No matter which way you cut it.. Jesus did sacrifice "time as God" for "time as man".  And while most people would contend that mathematically the time here on earth was the equivalent of zero to an infinite being.. I would just contend that mathematical ratios are a pour measure of human experience.  And while God may have been infinite (God), the moment he became finite (man), everyone moment was as real and as long as every moment is to you now.

The fact that you may live 30 more years does not make this second of your life any less real.  It is the present, as man, it is all we have.


The question in my mind (although.. heh, cleaned up of course)-- would you give a referee a your million dollars to hold, go to the 50 yard line and let a punter full force kick you in the groin, only to get the million dollars that was yours to begin with?

Jesus? Only if you consider those days as God as a "loss".  Once again.. the mathematical ratio argument I don't believe works in the case of human experience, which (I believe), according to Christian theology, Jesus lived.


I think that the Roman Empire presented an interesting situation where any sort of manifestation would be passed through the ages without the amount of cynicism that we have now to counteract such a manifestation.

While you may doubt the validity of Christian Theology, it has proven to be rather potent in its ability to differentiate itself from other messianic figures that came before and after.

And again, the whole "whether his creation was worth saving"-- I do not believe that the point of the experience was to "save" in the sense that, I think, most people understand-- but rather to show his willingness to reconcile with a freewilling creation which had turned his back on him (to some extent).

Who said I can't? I realize that possible the other way as well.. that it was just a coincidence.


The one I hold to.  Or do you mean, as in, denomination?


Not necessarily.  I'm merely stating that it's possible to interpret the Biblical writings in a different way in which both 'damnation' and 'saving' have different connotations then ones that many people feel are necessary interpretations: e.g. "Paying a price to oneself to save" from "eternal hellfire torture."

Furthermore, I think "ridiculously fallacious reasoning".. is a fascinating wording.

No apologies necessary.. I'll attempt to answer until I get tired.  I get worn out pretty easily. Heh.

I suppose I should of used the word "apathetic" or "indifferent", since this was more the connotation I meant by "cynicism" of the day. 

Let me a make a general observation (an opinion of course), that people are generally oblivious to anything going on outside the immediate sphere of being.  And, while information is quick flowing, the system is rather flooded and easily errored.

During the Roman Empire, more than any other time perhaps, the world seems to have been interconnected in a way that it would never be again.

By "interconnected" I mean in ways other than "technologically".

I'll admit, I'm making judgments off my perception of the history I know-- but nevertheless, as far as examples of religion go, "Christianity" did have a rather quick expansion.

(Wow.. I'm not sure I can judge the coherence of my last post-- I think I'm still out of it.) 

Yes.


Um.. no.. I don't "imagine" history.. I learn it, then "perceive it". Unless you are trying to contend that I "imagined" there was a Roman Empire, or a religious sect known as Christians during that time.


Heh. Then ban me.

I would hope that most would disagree--I definitely would.

Yet, I do not believe that you actually believe I am "bording on the distinction of a troll"-- if you do, then by all means ban me-- I wouldn't want to fall on the wrong side of the line. However, I understand if the statement just sort of slipped out without being fully thought through or without solid basis.

On the other hand, being banned would definitely save me some time and I'm more than happy to leave my words remain in stone-- I've been nothing but polite and only recently begun to respond "in-kind" to personal attacks, no more no less then a sentence for a sentence.

But whatever, until that day...

In anycase.. with regards to my statement about "outside of peoples immediate sphere of being".. I still would contend this is true for the majority of people. I don't believe the majority of western or eastern civilization loses sleep over the horrors happenings in Africa. I would also contend that the majority of people do not really internalize the concept that more than 50k+ people die in car accidents in the US alone.

We have become such a large world, of such large statistics, that things easily graze by.. yes, I believe we are "disconnected".

Instead, these days, we are affected by what is "news worthy" like.. oh, lets say, the cold weather in New England or the NBA finals.

Of course.. as I prefaced before with regards to these statements regarding the state of the world-- they are personal opinion.

Good point and I concede it.  The whole world was not "interconnected" to the Roman Empire--as I may have suggested it was.

In this, it was limited and isolated-- yet, does this make it less significant to the Rise of Christianity? (which I believe was the original question-- "what was the significance of this point in history?&quot

I don't know.  I guess I just couldn't imagine eastern mythology accepting a messianic figure (as Jesus presented himself to be)-- nor could I imagine a messianic figure being accept within the mythology of the western hemisphere (or, if accepted, as widespread as it is now [good or bad]).

As for why "0 A.D." as opposed to "100 B.C." or sooner.. hm, I will leave it up to someone else to suggest the differences between the times leading up to 0 B.C. (if any).

(See? I can concede points and step away rather gracefully.  

(The way I view Christian Theology is not one of mutually exclusivity.. [just making it clear] that just because someone believes differently does not mean one does not receive 'salvation' [in whatever that concept entails])

(Reitterating: I do not believe in "hell" in the way many people perceive it to be-- this is an important point with regards to why I perceive the "significance" of this point in time as trivial when compared to product of it.)

 

No problem.  Thanks for your questions.

The old cliche (not really a cliche) goes, regarding Jesus's death and the significance with regards to the 'model' is this:

If Jesus was willing to experience torture and death as the consequence of living life rightly, how much more should be willing to try to live life rightly without these perceived consequences?

By "rightly", I mean whatever one perceives to be moral and good.

His death is significant to Christians (I believe) because it shows willingness to reconcile with humanity, once humanity chooses it is ready to reconcile.

His death, in a secular sense, is significant because it can be understood to show courage and fortitude for what one perceives to be his/her purpose.

(Think.. "Braveheart"-- except with a Jew instead of a Scotsman, and a cross and whipping instead of a evisceration.)

In anycase. Thanks again for the challenges/questions-- definitely required new areas of thought for me.. which are (not) always good with regards to ones belief--but in this case they were.

 Anycasex2, I'm just rambling now..... so I'm gonna stop............now.

what does the crucifixion mean to you?

To me? Or to sugarfree? In case it was me I will answer:

I (try to) take from it both.  As a "Christian" I take from it the significance of the former.  As a person, I take from it the significance of the latter.

I do not believe the two perceived significances are mutually exclusive.. and so, I do not treat them as such. If ever I "stopped" being a Christian.. I would still hold the latter.  And if ever I "stopped" being a person.. I would still hold onto the former.

 

 

Ok, let me explain the brainwashing.  The significance of the crucifixion seems to be Pavlov's Dog effect.  The church shoves it in your face yelling "He died for you" so many times that you actually start to believe it is true and that the cross does have some significance.  There - answer to the significance and the brainwashing!  

 

To be quite honest, this whole thread appears to be a discussion in idolotry worship, which if I remember is a violation of at least one of your rules. 

The subject of brainwashing is relevant to the thread topic in this manner:

If the mechanics of the crucifixion is essential to christian doctrine -- or any other specific detail, such as the point in history when the jesus story is placed  -- then there should be some precise explanation for it, which one should understand prior to accepting baptism, rather than saying "I dunno", and waiting for the answer to come later.  

If on the other hand, the specifics are not relevant -- if jesus could have appeared at any point in history, and died in any fashion whatsoever -- then there is no revelation about the crucifixion to be received, no "I get it!" moment which one arrives at through 'spiritual growth'.  Under these latter circumstances, an "I get it!" moment would be a false construct, a creation of the individual's own mind. 

i asked these questions in a different context to rhad, but i'm interested in your perspective. what if jesus hadn't died of crucifixion? what if he died of food poisoning or a heart attack? would jesus still be jesus to you, if he didn't die in such a dramatic way? is there something special about the roman's capital punishment system which makes it ideal for taking on the sins of the world?

Not from my perspective.. it has significance-- this is not to say that it is significant in and of itself.

This would be likened to a ring my dad gave awhile back with the words: "Live to Learn, Learn to Live, Live to Love" or some variant of that.

The ring is not significant in and of itself-- yet it has significant.. I believe this is known as "sentimental value".

As for the brainwashing aspect of it-- valid argument.

Yet, as we've been discussing, the fact that the church may (or may not) "brainwash" people into thinking there is significance in a certain event does not allow for any deduction concerning the issue of whether or not significance can in fact be found in the event.


I would agree with this:

If "understanding the mechanics" is essential to christian doctrine-- or "understanding the significance of a particular point in history as a incubator for the christian church" is essential to christian doctrine-- then one should understand these things before one is baptized.

However, the way you state it is if as if to suggest the "mechanics" are essential to christian doctrine.. and "point in history" is essential to christian doctrine.

This would be likened to me stating that the "engine of a car" is essential to a car.. therefore I should "understand" how it works before I get inside of it.

I believe the "mechanics" are essential to christian doctrine-- I do not feel that "understanding the mechanics" are essential to christian doctrine.

Yet.. this is just me using an analogy.   This is not to say that one CANNOT understand-- yet, as most thing, there is never knowing if one is right or not.


Perhaps.. unless "I get it" refers to some temporally independent significance...


Former is: "His death is significant to (some) Christians (I believe) because it shows willingness to reconcile with humanity, once humanity chooses it is ready to reconcile."

Latter is: "His death, in a secular sense, is significant because it can be understood to show courage and fortitude for what one perceives to be his/her purpose."


I'll answer the same way.

If he had died from something other than external forces (Man), then I suppose I would consider much less melodramatic.. but nonetheless, some significance may have still be applied to it.

Jesus (if real and as who he stated) would be Jesus no matter what-- whether I would perceive him as such-- I don't know.. I must admit that the melodramatic nature of the story does appeal to me, even as the melodramatic nature of "The Last Samurai" appeals to me.

No.. there is nothing special about roman's capital punishment system which makes it ideal for taking on the sins of the world (in my belief).

Rhadified!!

Haha.

You're amazing. Hope your evening is going well. Your comment definitely made me smile--thanks for that. Heh. Heh, good day.

From my understanding, cruxifixion was used at the time as a deterrant, and it was meant to humiliate the offender.  They would crucify people as an example...if you do this, this is what we will do to you...we will make a public mockery of your death, we will kill you in this horrendous way, slowly, and allow everyone to watch.

For this reason, I think the cross (Jesus or no Jesus) was a powerful symbol to people of that time, and I'm guessing, God saw that and felt the existing symbolism would help him get his message out.  Now, if he had deemed food poisoning would have made more of an impact, than, sure, he could have used that too.  But, fact is, the mode of death he chose was crucifixion.  God was saying, "Okay, here I am, up on this cross, taking the punishment that you deserve...not defending myself, not saving myself pain and agony--which he could have done as it truly was in his full power.

But the point of Jesus's time on earth was not to say, look at me, aren't I so neat, look what I can do and that's that.  I think it was to say, yes, look at me, look at what I can do, and GIVEN what I can do, look at what I am willing to do for you.  I will lower myself, absolutely humiliate myself...for you.  I will bear your punishment so that you don't have to.

THAT is how merciful God is.  People beat up on Him and get caught up on Him being nothing more than a punisher, but I think, what God was trying to tell us with the cross shows quite the contrary...Yes God will punish (i.e., honor our right to not love Him, thus not force us to live with Him eternally), but that's not what motivates Him.  What motivates Him is His love for us, and he absolutely wants us to know that.  His ultimate hope is that we will accept His love and love Him back.

However, he does not make himself "obvious" because He wants to test our hearts for sincerity...that's why He doesn't declare with His trumpet every five minutes "Hey guys, I'm up here and I'm awesome, love me love me love me..."  Instead, he tests our character.  He gives us adequate chances, within our lifetimes, to discover Him, uncover Him in our own way.  And once we have done that...then we get to choose Him or reject Him.