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

[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]

'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]

. 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.

[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...

[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.

[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?).

[alexseanchai]

So ignore the comment notifications until you're ready to resume debate.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Again, I don't see why I have to do this if this is my LJ, my posts, and my comment thread. If this was on your profile, or Eirwen's, or Tim's, then I would ignore it. But considering my post is what started it, I'd appreciate it if we could just stop debating for a few hours just until I collect myself and actually want to debate once more.

[alexseanchai]

It's not your comment thread, because it's not just your comments. If you want discussion put on hold that badly, disable comments (which hides them until comments are reenabled) or freeze all the threads.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

All right. If you are unwilling to stop even after I asked you several times to do so, this comment thread is closed. If we wish to debate about this, there will be another post about this topic and we can do it there. But not until then.

[nanuq459.livejournal.com]

Beth, no offense, but... people have been debating this kind of stuff for centuries--you really think you're going to get all the answers here?

[alexseanchai]

Nah, but I'll get what Heidi and Cindy and whoever else think the answers are, which is just as fun to learn.

[nanuq459.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Okay, I'll say it.
Lay the hell off.

[callistahogan.livejournal.com]

Okay. As a point of reference, I don't want this LJ to turn into a debate every time I post about a Christian subject--which I will probably post about a lot--but I do not mind debating, so long as we are civil with each other, which is what we were doing yesterday. I have no objections to telling Beth what I, as well as many Christians, believe, so long as it does not turn into a slagging match.

Debates are fine, flames are not, and we have been debating, so I don't mind if Beth voices her opinions.

In fact, part of the reason why I'm posting this publically is so that people can see my opinions on the matter and we can all voice our opinions in a hopefully civil way. :)

[alexseanchai]

If you don't want to see the discussion, don't read the post.