stephan huller

I guess I should have given this thread the title “how did Clement reconcile an impassable God with the Passion?”. But I would never have the participation we're seeing here

mountainman

The same may be said of Arius of Alexandria, whom Constantine quotes as saying:

“Away! I do not wish God to appear
to be subject to suffering of outrages ...

mrsonic

600 years is crackers? jesus came more than 1000 years after moses, isn't that crackers ? jesus claims his new herectic judaism is right, the pharisees claim their ancient traditions were right, so according to you jesus was crackers.

sotto voce

Was that the deviancy of Arius, of Constantine, or of both? The natural tendency of those who feel the most guilt, who feel unable to give up their wrongdoing, is to describe what they well know to be the just judgment of deity as defective, delinquent behaviour on the part of deity. It's only to be expected from such persons.

mountainman

The Muslims deny the crucifixion of Jesus from the get go because they simply chose to follow the accounts of the heretics as your opening post adequately discloses. As for the vile Gnostic heretics, everyone knows that this abominable class of living creatures denied the integrity of the canonical books of the new testament, and as a result authored their own totally unofficial versions. (which the Muslims borrowed)

The only real question is therefore explaining how the canonical God, portrayed as a partial ascetic, ended up on a Roman Cross in downtown Jerusalem, ultimately triggering a mass zombie resurrection event, and many centuries afterwards, the Licona Zombie controversy.

sotto voce

Nothing is easier to answer. One does not need to read history. One does not need to read the media. One needs only to examine conscience.

Keith&Co.

I notice, though, that you don't actually answer it.
Just more vague mysticism-sounding allusions.

Where was that conversation, about unanswered question drive people away, even when something shaped like an answer is offered as a placeholder?

DCHindley

In the Republic of Plato, irrascible Thrasymachus demands of Socrates:

Rather (than turn a request for a direct answer into a game of "question and answer"), you yourself (i.e., Socrates) answer and tell, what is right/necessary, without (asking) what (is) beneficial, or what (is) profitable, or what (is) gainful, or what (is) advantageous, but express clearly and precisely whatever you say. (Republic, 1.336c-d)

As Origen said of Celsus:

[He is like] him who should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which have the appearance of establishing the truth, although really undermining it, while denying that truth had anywhere a home among men, or a dialectic which differed from sophistry." (Against Celsus 2:51)

What does it all mean? Hell, I don't know ... :constern01:

DCH

la70119

"His passion" = τὸ παθεῖν αὐτὸν

τὸ (article, single accusative neuter) = the

παθεῖν (verb, aorist infinitive active) = to have suffered*

αὐτὸν (personal / possessive pronoun, 3rd person singular accusative masculine) = him

* from πάσχω: I am acted upon in a certain way, either good or bad; I experience ill treatment, suffer.

In this context, his passion means his suffering. The writer of Acts is talking of Jesus as someone who actually suffered on an actual Roman execution pole/cross.

Doesn't necessarily mean he died! In gLuke 24 he devours a piece of fish like a normal person who hasn't eaten for three days and during that time had been through... a lot.

Edit: Damn, I should have gone through the rest of the thread before clicking the "Quote" button. My bad. But the anecdote in gLuke 24 is still relevant.

la70119

In line with the idea that it was Judas who was crucified, not Jesus:

gMatthew 27:5

Acts 1:18-19

In the other thread (stauros vs. xylon), I showed that regular Roman cucifixion was (at least sometimes) a form of impalement. Although the epigraphy indicates it was a "safe" impalement, could it have been that sometimes it was "unsafe"? That is, if one hanged down for too long, the spike, or projection / transgression of a seat as Tertullian called it, would punch through the abdomen and the condemned man's intestines spill out? In his book, Crucifixion, pg. 32 (footnote 25) Martin Hengel says that lines 543 through 547 of Lucan, The Civil War cover the subject.

Lucan, The Civil War (Pharsalia) 6.538-553 Link to English Link to Latin

I am going to focus on lines 544b through 546 because the Riley 1905 translation hides something that was just too much for Edwardian tastes.

pendentia corpora carpsit, = she pulls off the hanging corpse. So far, so good.

Abrasitque cruces: = and rubs off the cross. And alternate and better translation would be: and 'shaves' the impaling stake.

percussaque viscera nimbis vulsit = and the entrails that have been thrust through she pulls out in clouds.

et incoctas admisso sole medullas = and the intestines have been boiled by being exposed to the sun.

So you see, sometimes crucifixion was a form of unsafe impalement: the crucified one hanged impaled, and once his legs were too weak to push up or were broken the spike would punch through the abdomen, possibly causing the intestines to fall out.

So if Judas were crucified in lieu of Jesus it would certainly explain two blatantly contradictory verses concerning his death. And also why in gLuke Jesus was able to eat the fish! And the Field of Blood would definitely be a more logical name for an excecution field in those days than Skull Place.

So yes, I can see a tradition that Judas was crucified instead becoming established long before islam came onto the scene.