Confused about Jesus, the crucifiction, and hatred of the Jews

[HorhayAtAMD]

I came across this link today (thanks WJ!) and it reminded me of a serious question I've had for a very long time.

"Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection." -Pope Innocent III
"It would be licit, according to custom, to hold Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime." -St. Thomas Aquinas

Based on my understanding of Christianity, the crucifiction of Jesus was probably the single most important event in the Bible. If he hadn't been crucified, wouldn't this have an enormous effect on how Christians view the redemption of sins? I guess my biggest confusion is that Christians view the crucifiction as being an incredibly holy and dare I say, good event, while at the same time believing that it is the most dastardly crime ever committed. Can anyone either correct my understanding of the crucifiction or provide me with an explanation that brings sense to what seems to be mutually exclusive beliefs?

 

[dilloduck]

I came across this link today (thanks WJ!) and it reminded me of a serious question I've had for a very long time.

Based on my understanding of Christianity, the crucifiction of Jesus was probably the single most important event in the Bible. If he hadn't been crucified, wouldn't this have an enormous effect on how Christians view the redemption of sins? I guess my biggest confusion is that Christians view the crucifiction as being an incredibly holy and dare I say, good event, while at the same time believing that it is the most dastardly crime ever committed. Can anyone either correct my understanding of the crucifiction or provide me with an explanation that brings sense to what seems to be mutually exclusive beliefs?

The quote is old school catholisim----there's a newer version now.

 

[manu1959]

the crucifiction may well be the most important event but it does not diminsh the fact that it was a "crime" committed by the romans without justification

rising from the dead takes the prize for imortant events

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

The quote is old school catholisim----there's a newer version now.

I actually only posted those quotes so people knew the content on the other end of the link. My intention was not to pick on the Catholics or my Catholic wife would kill me.

Looking beyond those 2 particular quotes though, my question still stands. Even back during old school Catholicism, there must have been some official explanation for why the crucifiction was an essential event but the people behind it were evil. Even though all the mainstream Christian churches have come out with new versions, we both know that many people today still hold on to the old versions. I'm just curious how they are able to hold what I believe to be 2 incompatible beliefs about the crucifiction.

 

[manu1959]

I actually only posted those quotes so people knew the content on the other end of the link. My intention was not to pick on the Catholics or my Catholic wife would kill me.

Looking beyond those 2 particular quotes though, my question still stands. Even back during old school Catholicism, there must have been some official explanation for why the crucifiction was an essential event but the people behind it were evil. Even though all the mainstream Christian churches have come out with new versions, we both know that many people today still hold on to the old versions. I'm just curious how they are able to hold what I believe to be 2 incompatible beliefs about the crucifiction.

why is it not possible to say that jesus death was important yet condem the romans for killing him?

 

[Annie]

I actually only posted those quotes so people knew the content on the other end of the link. My intention was not to pick on the Catholics or my Catholic wife would kill me.

Looking beyond those 2 particular quotes though, my question still stands. Even back during old school Catholicism, there must have been some official explanation for why the crucifiction was an essential event but the people behind it were evil. Even though all the mainstream Christian churches have come out with new versions, we both know that many people today still hold on to the old versions. I'm just curious how they are able to hold what I believe to be 2 incompatible beliefs about the crucifiction.

I'm Catholic, but in no way a theologian. My take: Christ chose to suffer and die. There were those that were 'jews' that contributed to his demise. There were 'Romans' and there were 'inbetweens', the last being my terminology.

In any case, from Judas, to Pilate, to those also being crucified at that point in time, God knew what was in their hearts and minds. Can't say more than that.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

why is it not possible to say that jesus death was important yet condem the romans for killing him?

If the Romans and Jews hadn't played their roles in killing him, the crucifiction would not have happened. If the crucifiction had not happened, can someone with more knowledge of Christianity theorize as to how Christianity would be different today? It isn't exactly like we are saying "what if Jesus hadn't cured the leper", we are talking about eliminating the most important event in all of Christianity!

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

In any case, from Judas, to Pilate, to those also being crucified at that point in time, God knew what was in their hearts and minds. Can't say more than that.

Okay, that is a good explanation. Basically, people must be punished not for their actions, but for the intent behind those actions? Therefore, even if the end result of the actions is good, the people who did it should still be punished. Leads me to another one of my beefs: why do attempted murderers get lighter sentences than successful murderers? Seems to me that all we are doing is rewarding failure instead of punishing the intent.

 

[Annie]

Okay, that is a good explanation. Basically, people must be punished not for their actions, but for the intent behind those actions? Therefore, even if the end result of the actions is good, the people who did it should still be punished. Leads me to another one of my beefs: why do attempted murderers get lighter sentences than successful murderers? Seems to me that all we are doing is rewarding failure instead of punishing the intent.

Maybe for the same reason that those that 'attempt suicide' get another chance from those more focused and therefore successful?

 

[USMCDevilDog]

Honestly man, you'll never know. Christianity would be different, that's a fact, but, how? Who knows man. Ask God when you meet him, that is....if you don't sin.

I'm not religious, I don't have a religion, but I believe in what is believable. I'm bad at that, I need proof for everything, and that's not good at all, but that's how I am. I question it just like you do and I'm stumped. My best explanation is what I posted above. Hope it helps man.

 

[Eightball]

I think something very basic is being overlooked here...........namely without the crucifixion, and the ressurrection, Christianity cannot even exist as a faith.

The crucifixion/ressurrection is part and partial to Christianity.......period. Without it, what do you have as a faith or system of belief to conjecture about.....Nada!

As Holmes said to Dr. Watson, "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary!".

 

[Nuc]

I think something very basic is being overlooked here...........namely without the crucifixion, and the ressurrection, Christianity cannot even exist as a faith.

The crucifixion/ressurrection is part and partial to Christianity.......period. Without it, what do you have as a faith or system of belief to conjecture about.....Nada!

As Holmes said to Dr. Watson, "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary!".

I disagree. Much of the philosophy of Jesus is appealing without the resurrection. To me moreso. If Christianity were stripped of the supernatural and focussed on Jesus' philosophy I'd be much more inclined to be interested in it.

 

[Said1]

I disagree. Much of the philosophy of Jesus is appealing without the resurrection. To me moreso. If Christianity were stripped of the supernatural and focussed on Jesus' philosophy I'd be much more inclined to be interested in it.

In my opinion, the crucifixion/ressurrection "proved" Jesus was the son of God. Jesus still had followers previous to those events. Make sense, yes?

 

[Nuc]

In my opinion, the crucifixion/ressurrection "proved" Jesus was the son of God. Jesus still had followers previous to those events. Make sense, yes?

Of course that makes sense for believers. There are a whole lot of people who would consider Christianity if Christ's philosophy stood on its own. The way it developed requires suspension of disbelief beyond the power of many rational people. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater that way.

To me things like the resurrection and virgin birth are myths which were developed to "prove" that Jesus was a god. Because people need to worship things that are much bigger than themselves. On the other hand if you take away those unprovable myths there is still a lot of content in Jesus' teachings and Christianity could still exist and be effective as a philosophy rather than as a religion.

 

[Said1]

Of course that makes sense for believers. There are a whole lot of people who would consider Christianity if Christ's philosophy stood on its own. The way it developed requires suspension of disbelief beyond the power of many rational people. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater that way.

To me things like the resurrection and virgin birth are myths which were developed to "prove" that Jesus was a god. Because people need to worship things that are much bigger than themselves. On the other hand if you take away those unprovable myths there is still a lot of content in Jesus' teachings and Christianity could still exist and be effective as a philosophy rather than as a religion.

Oh yeah, believers, I forgot that part.

Anyway, I'm not a huge believer in magic and myth, but Jesus was cool. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Powerman or anything, I understand where serious people of faith are coming from, I just don't happen to be one.

 

[Hobbit]

Of course that makes sense for believers. There are a whole lot of people who would consider Christianity if Christ's philosophy stood on its own. The way it developed requires suspension of disbelief beyond the power of many rational people. The baby gets thrown out with the bathwater that way.

To me things like the resurrection and virgin birth are myths which were developed to "prove" that Jesus was a god. Because people need to worship things that are much bigger than themselves. On the other hand if you take away those unprovable myths there is still a lot of content in Jesus' teachings and Christianity could still exist and be effective as a philosophy rather than as a religion.

The problem with this philosophy is that Jesus said that he was the son of God. That being the case, there are only three possibilities.

1. Jesus was a liar. Hard to follow a man who was such a big liar, don't you think?
2. Jesus was a madman. This discredits everything he said, seing as how crazy people aren't exactly credible.
3. Jesus actually was the son of God. This is the only possibility that makes his teachings worthwhile.

You can't take the teachings without the religion. It's incompatible.

I disagree. Much of the philosophy of Jesus is appealing without the resurrection. To me moreso. If Christianity were stripped of the supernatural and focussed on Jesus' philosophy I'd be much more inclined to be interested in it.

The teachings of Jesus are great, but Christianity doesn't exist without the crucifixion and the ressurrection. The main theme of Christianity is that through Jesus, God will forgive our sins if we just ask. Anything at all can be forgiven because the price has been paid. As such, we are told to forgive others, just as God has forgiven us. This is the entire core of Christianity. Christianity without the crucifixion and ressurrection is, well, Judaism.

 

[Said1]

You can't take the teachings without the religion. It's incompatible.

How is it incompatible, specifically?

 

[Nuc]

The problem with this philosophy is that Jesus said that he was the son of God. That being the case, there are only three possibilities.

1. Jesus was a liar. Hard to follow a man who was such a big liar, don't you think?
2. Jesus was a madman. This discredits everything he said, seing as how crazy people aren't exactly credible.
3. Jesus actually was the son of God. This is the only possibility that makes his teachings worthwhile.

You can't take the teachings without the religion. It's incompatible.



The teachings of Jesus are great, but Christianity doesn't exist without the crucifixion and the ressurrection. The main theme of Christianity is that through Jesus, God will forgive our sins if we just ask. Anything at all can be forgiven because the price has been paid. As such, we are told to forgive others, just as God has forgiven us. This is the entire core of Christianity. Christianity without the crucifixion and ressurrection is, well, Judaism.

I am not a Bible scholar. The virgin birth is obviously something that was not reported at the time, therefore could have been made up to bolster the religion. Did Jesus ever state directly that his mother was a virgin, or do we get that from other sources? I have heard that he basically ignored her later in life. Jesus stopped talking after he was crucified, so he made no personal claims that he came back to life. That's something that comes only from man. Did he really say he was a god or the literal son of god? "Father" is something a lot of people call their gods. I am not trying to debunk your religion, I'm just saying isn't it possible to look at things from a different perspective? And in a lot of ways wouldn't it be preferable?

 

[Said1]

I am not a Bible scholar. The virgin birth is obviously something that was not reported at the time, therefore could have been made up to bolster the religion. Did Jesus ever state directly that his mother was a virgin, or do we get that from other sources? I have heard that he basically ignored her later in life. Jesus stopped talking after he was crucified, so he made no personal claims that he came back to life. That's something that comes only from man. Did he really say he was a god or the literal son of god? "Father" is something a lot of people call their gods. I am not trying to debunk your religion, I'm just saying isn't it possible to look at things from a different perspective? And in a lot of ways wouldn't it be preferable?

The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth are not the same thing, and I think it's just a Catholic doctrine which asserts that Mary was preserved by God from sin at the time of her own conception - Immaculate Conception, with Jesus being incarnate from the Virgin Mary - Virgin Birh. Or something like that....anyone else want to add?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm just wondering, would a bicycle be the same without wheels? I mean it'd still be pretty and shiny. Would beer be as popular a beverage without the alcohol conent? If penises were were flat and disclike would we consider plates to be phallic symbols? If pigs didn't make good bacon, would we still refer to cops as pigs? So many questions, each more important than the last.