On Christ's Passion

[Parodite]

As with Zim, we need a prosecutor to collect enough evidence to charge. In my view it would have been a crime to resurrect Jesus from the dead, i.e. expel him from painless heaven holding hands with his Father who then throws him back into the burning earthly pit and say peeka-booh to a handful, only to just disappear again beyond the beyonders. Maybe his Father threw him down on some other planet with more saving to do?

Less problems Jesus would have been a prophet? If that means no miracles to ponder... well, prophets miraculously got hold of a God-phone, wirelessly connecting with the edges of existence and beyond. It would compete with physical resurrection.

[Marcus]

. . Maybe his Father . .

Yer so cute, Rhap . .

The Junior God

The Junior God looked from his place
In the conning towers of heaven,
And he saw the world through the span of space
Like a giant golf-ball driven.
And because he was bored, as some gods are,
With high celestial mirth,
He clutched the reins of a shooting star,
And he steered it down to earth.

The Junior God, 'mid leaf and bud,
Passed on with a weary air,
Till lo! he came to a pool of mud,
And some hogs were rolling there.
Then in he plunged with gleeful cries,
And down he lay supine;
For they had no mud in paradise,
And they likewise had no swine.

The Junior God forgot himself;
He squelched mud through his toes;
With the careless joy of a wanton boy
His reckless laughter rose.
Till, tired at last, in a brook close by,
He washed off every stain;
Then softly up to the radiant sky
He rose, a god again.

The Junior God now heads the roll
In the list of heaven's peers;
He sits in the House of High Control,
And he regulates the spheres.
Yet does he wonder, do you suppose,
If, even in gods divine,
The best and wisest may not be those
Who have wallowed awhile with the swine?

—Robert Service

[Ibrahim]

Thinking of Jesus as a prophet instead of messiah relieves a lot of this stress.

But then it wouldn't be Christianity, would it? Or is that the point?

Christianity (according to some in this thread) relies on a specific, literal miracle which is theoretically falsifiable. It potentially distracts from the message, which should be more important.

Christianity, according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the unanimous confession of the ecumenical creeds is that miracle and message in the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Right, which creates the problem of emphasizing the literal events of Jesus' death and resurrection. It's an extra burden that Judaism or Islam don't have to cope with, and the potential difficulties of it are being discussed in this thread.

But what would an unbeliever, particularly a Muslim, know of that?

You can't seriously be arguing that only people within a given religious tradition can know anything about it or discuss it.

I'd suggest you content yourself with commenting on the message of Islam and the prophet Muhammed, something which you theoretically know something about, and leave the Christian message of the Messiah to the Christians.

Jesus is a Muslim prophet, thus even if you assume that Muslims should only comment on Muslim matters (etc.) I am still qualified to talk about the message of Jesus.

[Parodite]

...
Yet does he wonder, do you suppose,
If, even in gods divine,
The best and wisest may not be those
Who have wallowed awhile with the swine?

—Robert Service

[Marcus]

. . the problem of . . Jesus' death and resurrection. It's [a] burden . . Islam [doesn't] have to cope with . . Jesus is a Muslim prophet, thus . . I am . . qualified to talk about the message of Jesus.

You're qualified, as a Muslim, to "talk about" what Islam thinks is "the message of Jesus" which is not the message of Jesus according to Christianity. Stick to what you know, and stay away from that which you don't.

"Jesus' death and resurrection" is undoubtedly a "burden" for Islam and for you as a Muslim. Ain't no burden for us Christians . .

You go on and preach Islam to your heart's content, but don't pretend to portray Islam's version of Christ as anything more than that—Islam's version.

[Marcus]

...
Yet does he wonder, do you suppose,
If, even in gods divine,
The best and wisest may not be those
Who have wallowed awhile with the swine?

—Robert Service

You're getting warm . . .

[cdgt]

CG

Well, the literal based on physics and forensic pathology is a tad difficult to obtain 2,000 years or so afterwards.

Do not misunderstand me; I don't ask for certainty or else I will take my ball and go home. I don't ask for certainty, period. I just want to establish something very simple. It seems the only time these things that I was raised to take as acts of a miraculous God are even touched upon is through a screen of soft-shoe about nonexistence being important. Apparently, the god under discussion isn't going to have to answer these paradoxes because it's mixing religion and physics.

Poo.

If religion doesn't impact physics, it's Onanistic philosramblings, and I have beer to drink.

Well, I was partly conflating your response with noddy's (who was responding to yours), which probably wasn't fair to either.

Even if the god in question is outside of physics, for the most part, we aren't. So it is reasonable to expect that some impact on and communication through physics--if said god choses to communicate. Even if that whole contains a bit of physics defying aspects. (That can't be excluded, and might even be expected, if part of the communication is that physics ain't the sum total of the story.)

The problem with general religion is that it impacts physics altogether too much. We (explicitly or implicitly) define our desired ends, invent a religion that achieves them, and slaughter opponents (using physics) who oppose our desired ends.

Jesus dying on the cross, causing suffering and separation within the godhead, all because I cannot possibly redeem myself, ever, is pretty much exactly how I would not define a desired end. I can't wallow in my own self-importance or even self-pity over my own suffering. What kind of fun is that?

It seems to me that there is a part of me, while wholly expressed through physics, isn't ... founded in physics. That part of me (a rather small part) resonates (heh, to use a physics term) with the character of a god who chooses to suffer in physics and outside of physics on my behalf. But honestly, most of me recoils at that and would prefer the ability to construct my own religion wherein I could be somewhere nearer the center of attention and a candidate for admiration. But it is what it is.

Having tasted (however imperfectly apprehended) a suffering servant though, I can't settle for a celestial despot or a god of heavenly compulsion. The philosopher's god (in isolation) is equally underwhelming. Naturally YMMV.

[Ibrahim]

. . the problem of . . Jesus' death and resurrection. It's [a] burden . . Islam [doesn't] have to cope with . . Jesus is a Muslim prophet, thus . . I am . . qualified to talk about the message of Jesus.

You're qualified, as a Muslim, to "talk about" what Islam thinks is "the message of Jesus" which is not the message of Jesus according to Christianity. Stick to what you know, and stay away from that which you don't.

Again, you need to be clear about what you are claiming here. Are you trying to say that only people within a given religion can comment on it?

And does that apply to subsets of that religion? Are you qualified to comment on Catholicism, or only Calvinism? How narrow are the fields that people are qualified to discuss?

Presumably people like university professors are also unqualified, regardless of their credentials, to discuss religions other than their own?

"Jesus' death and resurrection" is undoubtedly a "burden" for Islam and for you as a Muslim. Ain't no burden for us Christians . .

People in this thread seem to consider it problematic, and are discussing the ways in which the literal events can be confirmed or falsified.

You go on and preach Islam to your heart's content, but don't pretend to portray Islam's version of Christ as anything more than that—Islam's version.

Jesus, not Christ.

[cdgt]

It would help ever so much and make everything easier,* if Jesus had cooperated and declared himself another in a long line of prophets and not the messiah.

• * Easy, naturally, is the sign of truth ... right?**
  
  • ** Mt 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

[Marcus]

Again, you need to be clear about what you are claiming here. Are you trying to say that only people within a given religion can comment on it? And does that apply to subsets of that religion? Are you qualified to comment on Catholicism, or only Calvinism? How narrow are the fields that people are qualified to discuss? Presumably people like university professors are also unqualified, regardless of their credentials, to discuss religions other than their own? People in this thread seem to consider it problematic, and are discussing the ways in which the literal events can be confirmed or falsified. Jesus, not Christ.

More of your nit-picking BS, Ib. To you and Islam, he's Jesus.

To me and Christianity, he's Christ.

[Ibrahim]

It would help ever so much and make everything easier,* if Jesus had cooperated and declared himself another in a long line of prophets and not the messiah.

• * Easy, naturally, is the sign of truth ... right?**
  
  • ** Mt 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

I should add, Jesus is the Messiah in Islam, just not the son of God. I think even some of Jesus' famous sayings in Christian texts are easier to understand in this light.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

[Marcus]

. . Jesus is the Messiah in Islam, just not the son of God. . .

You are most welcome to your "Islamic" Jesus.

We Christians will keep our Jesus whom we accept as God's son and our Messiah.

Okay?

This thread is supposed to be about Christ's passion. Islam rejects Jesus as the Christ, right? Maybe start a new thread about the death of the Islamic Jesus?

[Demon of Undoing]

Are we really arguing over who gets to talk about Jesus ?

[Ibrahim]

. . Jesus is the Messiah in Islam, just not the son of God. . .

You are most welcome to your "Islamic" Jesus.

We Christians will keep our Jesus whom we accept as God's son and our Messiah.

Okay?

This thread is supposed to be about Christ's passion. Islam rejects Jesus as the Christ, right? Maybe start a new thread about the death of the Islamic Jesus?

No, I'm just going to keep talking about "the passion" in this thread. Specifically how it burdens Christianity with a falsifiable historical event required for it to be theologically coherent.

[Marcus]

Are we really arguing over who gets to talk about Jesus ?

No, DU, we're arguing over who gets to talk about Christ . . .

Ib's is trying to peddle his Islamic Jesus and rewrite two thousand years of ecumenical Christian confession in the process . . he's Johnny-Come-Lately to the party . .

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae,
et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,
inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem,
vitam aeternam.
Amen

—The Apostle's Creed*

• *I believe in God the Father Almighty,
  Maker of heaven and earth:
  And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
  Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
  Born of the Virgin Mary,
  Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
  Was crucified, dead, and buried:
  He descended into hell;
  The third day he rose again from the dead;
  He ascended into heaven,
  And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
  From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
  I believe in the Holy Ghost;
  The holy Catholick Church;
  The Communion of Saints;
  The Forgiveness of sins;
  The Resurrection of the body,
  And the Life everlasting.
  Amen.

[Ibrahim]

Are we really arguing over who gets to talk about Jesus ?

No, DU, we're arguing over who gets to talk about Christ . . .

Who does get to talk about "Christ?" Seems like evangelism would be tricky if only Christians were allowed.

Ib's is trying to peddle his Islamic Jesus and rewrite two thousand years of ecumenical Christian confession in the process . . he's Johnny-Come-Lately to the party . .

Incorrect. I talking about the theological implications of focusing on an historical event.

[Marcus]

. . I don't think [the resurrection] happened . . I . . said [Christianity] was burdened. . and Islam [doesn't] have this problem, . .

Who knew? . . .

• *More of your crawdaddin' and backpeddling:
  "I'm . . going to keep talking about . . how [the passion of the Christ] burdens Christianity . . " —Ibs

[Torchwood]

Right, which creates the problem of emphasizing the literal events of Jesus' death and resurrection. It's an extra burden that Judaism or Islam don't have to cope with, and the potential difficulties of it are being discussed in this thread.

So Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed? Equally problematical, and indeed probably more easily falsifiable by textual analysis.

And for those ex-Christians who think that Buddhism is more rational and scientific, the Law of Karma and reincarnation, no evidence for that whatsoever.

[Dioscuri]

If the Resurrection, for you, must entail the restoration and perpetuation of your former life and all that appears to you be "living" and "normal" and understandable within this life that is so dear to you, then there is no Resurrection of Christ.

If this present life, in itself, is of no particular importance, but is only the basis for the production of meaning, a vector of light, then there is a Resurrection of Christ, and there is nothing in the least "supernatural" about it.

[Ibrahim]

Right, which creates the problem of emphasizing the literal events of Jesus' death and resurrection. It's an extra burden that Judaism or Islam don't have to cope with, and the potential difficulties of it are being discussed in this thread.

So Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed? Equally problematical, and indeed probably more easily falsifiable by textual analysis.

I hope you're not referring to samwise's pathetic amateur exercise on a previous forum.

There is some merit to what you say, except that you're going about it the wrong way. Textual analysis can't "prove" anything whatsoever, it only produces conjecture. But if there was some more reliable historical method of proving multiple authors you might be on to something.

Even then, "man dictates book" is less of a stretch than "man comes back from dead" in terms of historical probability.

[Ibrahim]

. . I don't think [the resurrection] happened . . I . . said [Christianity] was burdened. . and Islam [doesn't] have this problem, . .

Who knew? . . .



*More of your crawdaddin' and backpeddling:
"I'm . . going to keep talking about . . how [the passion of the Christ] burdens Christianity . . " —Ibs

More lying. Sad.

[billhicksmostfunny]

As with Zim, we need a prosecutor to collect enough evidence to charge. In my view it would have been a crime to resurrect Jesus from the dead, i.e. expel him from painless heaven holding hands with his Father who then throws him back into the burning earthly pit and say peeka-booh to a handful, only to just disappear again beyond the beyonders. Maybe his Father threw him down on some other planet with more saving to do?
Less problems Jesus would have been a prophet? If that means no miracles to ponder... well, prophets miraculously got hold of a God-phone, wirelessly connecting with the edges of existence and beyond. It would compete with physical resurrection.

Very well-stated. Although you must remember, the prophets aren't the only one with a God-phone. A lot of ordinary church folk have that number too. Especially amongst the Mormon.

You can't seriously be arguing that only people within a given religious tradition can know anything about it or discuss it.

Yes this is exactly what Marcus is saying.

Again, you need to be clear about what you are claiming here. Are you trying to say that only people within a given religion can comment on it?

Again, yes this is exactly what he is saying. Look at his answer to this line of inquiry: "More of your nit-picking BS!" I am surprised he didn't try to back-pedal his way out of this one. Instead he just says it is nick-picking and hopes everyone will forget about it. Not likely..........

Are we really arguing over who gets to talk about Jesus ?

Not so much an argument. Just Marcus telling us only true Christians are qualified to talk about Jesus Christ. Then when pressed to back up his ridiculous statement he opted out by accusing someone of too much nitpicking. What it really points to is that he is too uncomfortable with what he said to say it anymore for fear that everyone will call him out this time.

So Allah dictated the Koran to Mohammed? Equally problematical, and indeed probably more easily falsifiable by textual analysis.
And for those ex-Christians who think that Buddhism is more rational and scientific, the Law of Karma and reincarnation, no evidence for that whatsoever.

I appreciate this Torchwood, but this is a line of reasoning a little too advanced for a few of us at this particular time. If we were to point out all the things that are problematic for organized religion we would be on this forum for 50 lifetimes.

Also also
3). If there was no empty tomb, this is the stupidest argument we could possibly have.

The argument is really pretty stupid. And even more stupid b/c the argument is over. It was over a few years back. Perhaps when John Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than God and all the believers had a conniption fit, but it was probably even before that. Anyway you look at it, long ago society decided there was no empty tomb. Jesus died once and has been dead ever since. Just like he was born once, and not of a virgin. He was born human just like all the rest of us. Born once, died once, end of the story.

[Marcus]

. . there was no empty tomb. Jesus died once and has been dead ever since. Just like he was born once, and not of a virgin. He was born human just like all the rest of us. Born once, died once, end of the story.

And here you're trying to tell us you don't have faith . . .

[billhicksmostfunny]

Bill, you really got a hard-on for me, don't you?

Just about the only thing left you can say, huh?

But actually wait, as a true Christian you aren't really qualified to speak about hard-on's. Sorry, but the church frowns upon any speak of sexual innuendo. And the church most certainly frowns on any type of sexual liberation. If you are not speaking of a man and a woman missionary style then it is not something you should be talking about. So you talking about you and I and hard-on's would qualify you as a heretic. Join the club, Marcus, don't be shy.....

You know this how?

The laws of physics don't sleep. That's how I know it. And Jesus Christ was not above or immune to the laws of physics just b/c your holy bible (which is no more holy than any other book) says so. That ain't quite how it works.......sorry try again....

[noddy]

CG

Well, the literal based on physics and forensic pathology is a tad difficult to obtain 2,000 years or so afterwards.

Do not misunderstand me; I don't ask for certainty or else I will take my ball and go home. I don't ask for certainty, period. I just want to establish something very simple. It seems the only time these things that I was raised to take as acts of a miraculous God are even touched upon is through a screen of soft-shoe about nonexistence being important. Apparently, the god under discussion isn't going to have to answer these paradoxes because it's mixing religion and physics.

Poo.

If religion doesn't impact physics, it's Onanistic philosramblings, and I have beer to drink.

Well, I was partly conflating your response with noddy's (who was responding to yours), which probably wasn't fair to either.

Even if the god in question is outside of physics, for the most part, we aren't. So it is reasonable to expect that some impact on and communication through physics--if said god choses to communicate. Even if that whole contains a bit of physics defying aspects. (That can't be excluded, and might even be expected, if part of the communication is that physics ain't the sum total of the story.)

The problem with general religion is that it impacts physics altogether too much. We (explicitly or implicitly) define our desired ends, invent a religion that achieves them, and slaughter opponents (using physics) who oppose our desired ends.

Jesus dying on the cross, causing suffering and separation within the godhead, all because I cannot possibly redeem myself, ever, is pretty much exactly how I would not define a desired end. I can't wallow in my own self-importance or even self-pity over my own suffering. What kind of fun is that?

It seems to me that there is a part of me, while wholly expressed through physics, isn't ... founded in physics. That part of me (a rather small part) resonates (heh, to use a physics term) with the character of a god who chooses to suffer in physics and outside of physics on my behalf. But honestly, most of me recoils at that and would prefer the ability to construct my own religion wherein I could be somewhere nearer the center of attention and a candidate for admiration. But it is what it is.

Having tasted (however imperfectly apprehended) a suffering servant though, I can't settle for a celestial despot or a god of heavenly compulsion. The philosopher's god (in isolation) is equally underwhelming. Naturally YMMV.

individual humans who are thoughtful and take life seriously without taking themselves seriously are highly prized to me, alas, they all tend to have interestingly different metas in da meta physics... what that means in this "mega picture" i really cant say... spose i could wishy washy it out with language/symbol differences but hey, we are back to square one again.

and really, i cant say for sure they arent just giving me simpler insight into things that work and things that go pear shaped based on life experience, be it personal wisdom or be it cultural wisdom .. a practical head says this is more likely.

first causes and infinities of before and after my existence.. hmm .. my affection of ignoring talk from people on subject matter i know they havent personally been involved with makes it extremely difficult to take any of it as anything except for metaphor for the above.