callistahogan | Crucifixion

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?

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: One Way, Hillsong

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I never said God has to work according to my rules. I said, I find it impossible to believe that a God who knows everything (including, presumably, how to build a world in which there is only pleasure and lack thereof, not pleasure and pain) and has the power to do anything (including, presumably, how to build said world) and wants only the best for us (and therefore presumably doesn't like seeing us hurt each other) exists, because if he did, he'd have built a world in which nobody could hurt anyone else.

Or even if it's as impossible to have free will without the ability to hurt each other as it is to have a square circle, he could still have built a world without sociopaths, natural disasters, or nasty genetic diseases that kill toddlers.

But he *did* create a world void of pain. He created the world perfectly. There was no evil. Yet, He created us with free will. He created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Perhaps that wasn't a wise thing to do, if you think that God was not all-knowing and all-powerful if sin was even able to enter the world in the first place. He created us with free will, Satan took control of that, and bam, sin entered the world. And I understand this is a lousy description, but I really am not good at explaining this, but am trying as hard as I can to do so.

And he did, before our damned ancestors listened to the snake and ate the fruit God told them not to eat, and tried to cover up their sins and blame others instead of confessing and taking responsibility for them. That was when sin entered the world and the perfect world where everything coexisted peacefully ceased to be.

Neither of you seems to realize that an omniscient God would have seen that coming and an omnipotent God could have set up the world so it couldn't happen and an omnibenevolent God would want to make sure it wouldn't happen.

Incidentally, didn't God say that on the day Adam and Eve ate the apple, they'd die? See how that didn't happen? (And you can't use the line that God meant a God-day of longer than an Earth-day without applying it to the days of the first chapter of Genesis too.) What's that called again? Oh yes, a lie. Perfect nothing.

We realize that perfectly well. And I am not claiming to know why God *didn't* stop it from happening. *I* am not God. *I* am not the center of the universe. I, a teeny, petty, selfish little human, cannot explain what the Lord of all the universe really thinks and feels. I cannot explain why He does what He does. Only God can do that.

And it wasn't a lie. It was called *mercy*. He granted mercy on His creation, because, believe it or not (and I find it hard to believe), He loves us and wants us to be with Him.

So you're saying he told Adam and Eve if they ate the apple they'd die that day, meaning to kill them if they ate the apple, yet knowing full well (there's that omniscience thing again) that he would be merciful and refrain from killing them?

I am not sure exactly what I am saying. All I know is that God will do what He will do and we cannot understand why He do. This is only a theory, however.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were perfect. They were not sinful. They were fully living. They were happy. I don't think any of us have ever lived as perfectly and wonderfully as Adam and Eve did in the first days on the garden. And perhaps, when they ate of it, it was not a physical death, like we so often assume, but a spiritual death. They separated themselves from God and, in my perspective--not saying you have to agree with me--that is the worst sort of death possible, because I cannot imagine being separated from God by sin in that way.

So, if we go by the fact that God meant a spiritual death, that would not contradict what He said. And, since we can never know exactly what God means when he says something, then we can't say that what He said was a lie unless we know for sure.

The Bible is a very versatile book, like I've found. It can be interpreted in so many ways.

Quote:

The Bible is a very versatile book, like I've found. It can be interpreted in so many ways.

I've noticed.

They did die. Death entered the world when sin did, because sins lead to death. And He *told* them not to eat the fruits because they will surely die when they do. It's not God's fault that Eve and Adam used their free will to disobey God, just like if you touched the stove when your parents told you not to because they know if you do, you'll get burned, it's your fault, not your parents'.
...Oh, I forgot, you want a God who shelter us from all possibilities of bad things happening from the very beginning of creation even if that means we lose our free will. My bad.

I fail to see how preventing the possibility of choices that cause harm to others constrains one's free will, any more than the lack of McD's in a town constrains one's ability to pick one of the eight other burger joints to get food from.

And I'm aware that Adam and Eve died. But see here, Genesis 2:16-17? "The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;=but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."" In the day that you eat from it you will surely die. That same day, not the next day, not nine hundred thirty years later.

I am not sure where you get your reasoning. If you eliminate one choice from the game, so to speak, there is only one choice left. Neutral choices would not be an option, because there would be bad sides to it and, since God keeps us from doing anything bad, there would be only good things. And if you could only do good things, would that not affect your free will? If you eliminate one entire choice, that impacts your free will.

Also, I still hold to my belief that death is separation from God. It gives you no hope to be reconciled. Sin was that death. It was the thing that separated us from God, making it so that we were able to sin, that we were able to make bad choices. Once Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they died, perhaps not physically, but spiritually. There are more ways to die than simply physically and I believe that is what God was referring to.

The world's not black and white. The world's technicolor. I'm saying, remove the dark shades from the palette and there's still a pretty big palette. And I think if he was telling the truth, he'd have said 'you will surely be kicked out of the Garden', or words to that effect that quite clearly didn't mean physical death, rather than 'you will surely die'.

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.

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

'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?

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.

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?

. 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.

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...

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.