Crucifixion

[callistahogan]

As you can probably imagine, I had to do a post on this topic eventually.

As you all know--or all should know--yesterday is the day commonly associated with Jesus's resurrection, and last Friday the date commonly known as Good Friday, the day Jesus died on the cross for our sins. As such, there were apparently quite a few shows on the Bible and the events written in the Bible on the Discovery Channel last night, and I caught this show on the crucifixion.

And they were vicious.

There were apparently many ways of crucifixion during the Ancient Roman times, whether it was by the cross (which is the most universally-known form of crucifixion) or by simply running them through with a spear, sticking the spear in the ground and leaving them to die... in plain sight. The Ancient Romans were all about power and torture, and making themselves out to be the biggest bullies in the playground, to use a metaphor.

It was scary, seeing what they did. It seemed like crucifixion was purely made to prolong the process of death as long as possible, and that's exactly what it was for, according to the show I watched. It was absolutely scary, seeing them impale people through their stomachs, leaving them to bleed to death, and seeing men and even woman get scourged and then hung on a cross to die, nails driven into the hands and feet so that they could hardly even move. Not to mention the fact that they had to carry their cross beams to the crucifixion site which, more often that not, was more than a mile away from the city.

In my Christian point of view, the fact that Jesus had to go through this type of torture just makes it all the worse, not that it wasn't absolutely terrible before.

I mean, during one of the Jewish revolts in... 4 A.D., I believe, the Ancient Romans crucified over six thousand men and woman along the roads. One person is bad enough, three people is absolutely terrible, but six thousand? I don't understand why people would ever want to cause so much harm to another human being, I really don't. It's absolutely terrible.

I'm still reeling from what I saw, frankly. It was terribly bloodthirsty. I am glad that, for all intents and purposes, we've gotten out of that crucifixion stage, even though there are terrible ways to kill nowadays. I just can't believe that Jesus went through all that torture, and not because He did anything wrong, either--He was betrayed, and He died on the cross for our sins. He willingly went through all of that torture... for us. And I find it terrible that we don't recognize that sacrifice...

But I'll stop this post now, considering it's gotten fairly long winded. It just goes to show how much I can ramble on and on about a topic if it interests me enough, doesn't it?

Comments

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

But how are you so sure that He *did* mean a physical death? What we have is simply a translation of the widely-accepted canon of the Bible. In the Hebrew language, there were many words for many different things (such as many words for "day," depending on the definition) and, since death is such a prevalent topic, I am sure there would be a word in the Hebrew Bible that clearly meant "physical death," just as there are words that mean "literal day" and such like that. There are many ways that verse can be interpreted, and nitpicking over it isn't really going to help much. The fact is is that it truly was a spiritual death, and perhaps that is what He meant. That is what I believe He did mean.

And yes, I understand the world is technicolor. But actions are either good, neutral, or bad. And if they're neutral, they contribute things to both sides--good and evil. And if God wants us to be perfectly happy and not have any grief and suffering, would He not eliminate the neutral choices as well as the bad, if only for the simple reason that neutral choices do not help anything? You seem to say that God must only want us to do good. If so, then he would have *restricted* our free will into only being *able* to do good in our free will.

[alexseanchai]

I need to learn Hebrew and find a copy of the original Hebrew text. That way I'll be able to demonstrate with absolute certainty that the word used in the original text means dying a physical death.

I'd call choosing a T-shirt a neutral action. How does it contribute anything to either good or evil if I pick the green one over the blue?

And you seem to be saying that if God only wants us to do good, then he would have made sure we could only do good. But he didn't make sure we could only do good, which means, by your statement, that he must want us to at least sometimes do bad. How does this compute with the omnibenevolence bit?

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

How are you so *sure* that you are correct? Why do you assume that you are correct, instead of having an open mind and entertaining the notion that God is not murderous and would not kill His children without good reason? You have no way to be sure that he meant a physical death, so *please*, kindly do not state that you are correct without knowing for *sure* that you are.

Thank you.

And, like I said, I do not attempt to understand God. We might not understand why He did it, but the fact still stands that He did, and I hope that one day I will be able to understand why He did what He did. But right now what we are doing is pure speculation, and that is quite dangerous when we go and state outright that our side is correct and that the other is wrong.

[alexseanchai]

I'm almost positive I'm correct because when one says 'die', one almost always means it either in the literal sense of physical death or in a joking sense as in Dead$Chatperson, and the joking sense plainly does not apply. But very well.

I assume you believe hell exists and some people spend eternity there. Why would a god who loves everyone do that? Nothing we do in our finite span on earth can possibly deserve infinite punishment. I can't imagine even Hitler deserving punishment outlasting six million reruns of a horrible death in the gas chamber.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Listen, Beth.

You are not God.

I am not God.

Humankind is not God.

What we do does *not* in *any* way reflect what God would do. The mere fact that we sin proves that we do not do what God does. We cannot base God on what we do. Instead, we have to base God outside of our perceptions of what a living, breathing, talking being should do, and instead think of what *God* is. And since we cannot understand God, we cannot say "Yes, he meant this" or "No, he meant that." I have my own theory, you have yours. We all have different interpretations of the Biblical text in Genesis. I am not saying your view is wrong, yet you are saying you are surely right which, by default, means that I am wrong. I do not pretend to know who God is. I'm making a shot in the dark by even debating this.

And, since this debate seems to be rapidly dissipating into a "I'm going to prove you wrong!" discussion, I think it would be wise if we stopped discussing this for now. Perhaps we can take this up again eventually, but I think we've discussed it enough. We're not going to change each others' opinions, after all.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

I would like to point out your quote is one of many versions of differing English translations. In New International version, 2:17 states "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." That allows for a looser interpretation. Also, consider this link: http://scripturetext.com/genesis/2-17.htm
According to Young's Literal Translation, which we could deduce to be the closest to the original Hebrew, Genesis 2:17 says " and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die". "dying thou dost die" is the focal point here; the rest is pretty self-evident. Now,I know nothing of Hebrew grammar, so I looked for sources online, and found this link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/02/dying-you-shall-die
Also, consider these verses: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam�s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man�s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."--Romans 5: 12-18

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

Sorry for double-posting, but another link you mind find helpful: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

[alexseanchai]

Does that translate to I stumped you?

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

No, I'm sorry.

You did not stump me. I, unfortunately, need to back out of this before I explode and, as such, retreated. In fact, I know the exact answer to your question, but since you will most likely not consider what I say, I think it's wise that we back out of this.

Just because I back out of a debate does not automatically mean that you won. It just means that I do not have the time or the patience to debate anymore, not that I do not wish to.

[alexseanchai]

I want to hear your answer, then. Doesn't have to be now.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

And you will hear it. Just not right now, because we've been at this for *four* hours and I'm getting tired of debating for the moment.

You will have to remind me tomorrow or in a few days or something, though.

[alexseanchai]

'When' doesn't actually allow for a looser translation than 'in the day that'. 'After' would, but 'when' doesn't. And Young's Literal Translation still says 'in the day of'. And we're back around to the question of why was it necessary for somebody, even a volunteer, to die a horrible death to make up for everybody else's transgressions—not to mention the question of why the consequences of Eve's disobedience affected her children. They might have to grow up outside the Garden because their parents weren't allowed in anymore, but once they were grown and before Cain got murderous, why were they still made to suffer for their parents' error?

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

You just answered that question.

Because they were now sinful and, as such, sinful people cannot enter the Garden. They were banished because they sinned against God. They were separated from Him, and as such, could not enter His kingdom on Earth, which was indeed what the Garden of Eden was.

And Jesus had to die for our transgressions because *he was the only one who could*. Plain and simple, the Son of God was the only one who could possibly die for our sins. When He died for us, He gave us hope for freedom, redemption, and forgiveness.

And now, since we should have ended this a few posts ago, can we please stop discussing this at the moment? Debates are fun, but not for four hours on end, nearing five. That is just way too much for me. If we could wait until tomorrow, or perhaps in a few days, to contine this, it would be much appreciated.

[alexseanchai]

I thought I was talking to Cindy. And God's the only source of justice who'd consider it just for someone to die to make amends for the murder someone else committed. And unless you subscribe to the theory that children too young to know that what they're doing is wrong are still sinful for doing it, there was some period of time during which the only sin on either Cain's soul or Abel's was committed by Adam and Eve. Which, why?

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind that said God is also the God of Noah's Ark who "saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time"(Genesis 6: 5) and was so grieved that he made man on the earth that he wiped out all creations save those in Noah's Ark in the Flood. Just because He is a loving God doesn't mean He doesn't despise sin and punishes those who commit them. Sin leads to death, and there's no way for us to escape the consequences of sin except through Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but through Him.

[alexseanchai]

I can buy (at least for the purpose of argument) that everyone on the planet except Noah had done so much wrong that they all deserved death. I can't buy that any wrong can be infinite, or that anyone can commit an infinite number of wrongs in a finite span of time, which together means that I can't buy that anyone's cumulative wrongdoing can be anything but finite. I also can't buy that any finite wrongdoing deserves infinite punishment.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

. And Young's Literal Translation still says 'in the day of'.

It would appear to me that you neglected to read the links I provided to supplement the fact that I'm not a Hebrew scholar and therefore can't answer the question thoroughly.

One enquiry sent to me about Genesis 2:17 said that the verse says “in THAT day” you shall surely die. So, the enquirer said, it sure seems to say that Adam would die physically that day. But the demonstrative pronoun, “that,” is not in the Hebrew text at this point. The Hebrew has beyom (בְּיוֹם), where the Hebrew preposition b (ב, usually is translated “in”) is connected as a prefix to yom (יוֹם, which is the word for “day”). This Hebrew temporal adverb is often translated with the English prepositional phrase “in the day that.” This would be the essentially “woodenly literal” translation (although “the” and “that” are not in the Hebrew but are added to make the English sound smooth). But only sometimes (not always) does beyom refer to a literal day, in which case the context makes it clear. This same construction (beyom) appears in Genesis 2:4 and does not refer to a specific 24-hour day but to the whole creation week of six literal days. See also Numbers 7:10-84, where in verses 10 and 84 beyom refers to a period of twelve days of sacrifice. But a different construction occurs in between those verses. There in verses 12, 18, 24, etc., which describe the sacrifices of each of those days, bayyom (בַּיּוֹם) is used, where the “a” (the vowel mark under the first Hebrew letter on the right) and the dot (dagesh) under the second letter on the right (yod) indicate the definite article “the.” (For days 11 and 12, in verses 72 and 78, we find beyom). The phrase beyom is therefore sometimes rightly translated as “when,” referring to a period longer than a day, as in the NIV in both Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 2:17 (and in Numbers 7:10 and 84 and elsewhere—the NAS, HCSB and NKJV versions also translate it as “when” in these verses in Numbers). -http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/02/dying-you-shall-die

Also, re-posting the earlier link because I'm too lazy to copy everything, including scans of Hebrew texts and definitions: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

And in response to your second point: they were not made to suffer because of their parents' sins. sin is a part of our nature since the Fall of Man. And that's why salvation, not merely good work, is needed. We can't help but sin, so it have to take a sinless man to die and be resurrected, and us to be reborn in him (therefore, choosing God's way over human nature and following his will, not what we think is right) for us to be saved.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

It's not about how many sins you commit. We are *all* sinners. And the penalty for sin is both physical death and spiritual death in the form of separation from God. It's simple. You (a generic you, fyi) denounce God. Eventually, God is going to let you be and give you what you wanted--separation from Him.

[alexseanchai]

I did read the links. You commented on a translation, therefore so did I. And what you quote above says the word that we're arguing about translation of can go either way.

And Cain and Abel weren't present for the Fall, so how is making it so that their nature includes sin not making them suffer for their parents' sin?

And you're still evading the question of why is it right in anyone's mind for Alice to commit murder and be sentenced to death and Bob to be executed instead of Alice, whether he volunteered for it or not?

Of course this is the same God who ordered, among other things, the genocide of the Amalekites...

[alexseanchai]

Which is, again, infinite punishment for finite wrongdoing.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

You know what? I'm tired of arguing with you. I have scholarship stuff and homeworks to work on, and I need to eat. For the record, I'm not stumped, I'm not admitting defeat. I'm simply tired of typing. Agreeing to disagree.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

Like I said in the other post, let's just agree to disagree and be done with it. It's clear neither side is going to change opinion or back off should this continue.
(Just saying though, in the end, it's what He thinks that matters, not what we think. Us to eternity is less than an ant to us. Just be glad God cares *at all*.)

[alexseanchai]

Yeah, but it's fun to get a clearer picture of what the other side believes. And you may have missed the bit where I don't believe your god or any other exists.

[eirwen555.livejournal.com]

Believe what you will then. In the mean time, I have a Heart of Darkness to examine... *grumbles*

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Beth, this *is* my LiveJournal. Debate is fine, but in small doses. When you've been at this for *five* hours, it gets tiring, especially when it's on a public journal, which means anyone can see what we're saying. I'd prefer it if we could just let this go for now. Like I said, we can pick this up later.

Just please, if the owner of this journal asks to stop, please do so, or at least take it to private messages (there are such things as private messages here, aren't there?).