posted April 23, 2004 02:06 PM           

If, according to most Christian doctrine, you must believe that it is because Christ died on the cross that you are saved...doesn't that make those who killed him heroes in a way? I mean, if they hadn't..you couldn't be saved.

So here's the scenerio:

Christ hasn't been crucified yet. Would you do it? I mean would you kill him to save the whole of humanity?

IF the ONLY way that the human race could have the opportunity to escape the death created by the so-called "original sin" is through Jesus of Nazareth's bloody sacrifice...WOULD YOU KILL HIM?! I mean CMON! It's for a good cause...right?

If you answer yes...wouldn't you be a murderer then? A betrayer of God and his commandments?

If you answered no...wouldn't you be a coward then? A betrayer of Jesus and his fate as a perfect human destined for sacrificial slaughter?

Here's a better question perhaps:

What would Jesus do?

Seems to me that he would probably untie the ropes that bind you and set you free and he would do it without killing you..or dying himself.

Perhaps we should focus less on his death at the hands of murderers, and more on his life as one who loved God.

One drop in the ocean, one life with which to love you,

daf

see also:

posted April 23, 2004 05:07 PM           

Sooo..would you do it? Would you kill Jesus to save humanity from original sin? If not, why not...if you would..would you have any reservations about doing it?

On a side note, the Sabbath day wouldn't begin at sundown on Friday, but at dawn on Saturday.

Love,

posted April 23, 2004 07:04 PM         

The Spear of Destiny
by Trevor Ravenscroft

PROLOGUE
THE MOULD OF A LEGEND

"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there blood and water.
"And he that saw it bare record, and his record is truek that ye might believe.
"For these things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled, 'a bone of Him shall not be broken'.
"And again another scripture saith, 'They shall look on Him whom they have pierced'."
Saint John 19, 34-37

In the final chapters of the Gospel of Saint John it is told how a soldier pierced the side of Christ with a Spear. The name of this soldier was Gaius Cassius and he attended the crucifixion as the official Roman representative for the Pro-Consul, Pontius Pilate. Cataracts in both eyes prevented this veteran officer from battle service with his Legion and instead he reported on the religious and political scene in Jerusalem.
For two years Gaius Cassius had followed the activities of a certain Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the Messiah and looked like undermining the authority of the Roman occupation of Israel.
The Roman centurion watched the Legionaires carry out the execution of Jesus Christ and like them, too, he was impressed by the courage, diginity and bearing of the Nazarene on the Cross.
Isaiah had prophesied of the Messiah, "A bone of Him shall not be broken." Annas, the aged advisor to the Sanhedrin, and Caiaphas, the High Priest, were intent on mutilating the body of Christ to prove to the masses of the people that Jesus was not the Messiah, but merely a heretic and potential usurper of their own power.
The hours were passing and this presented the excuse they needed. For Annas was an authority on the Law, and the Jewish Law decreed that no man should be executed on the Sabbath Day. Straightway, they petitioned Pontius Pilate for the authority to break the limbs of the crucified men so that they shoul die before dusk on that Friday afternoon (5th April, 33 A.D.).
A party from the Temple Guard was sent out for this purpose to the mount on Golgotha, which means the Place of the Skull. At their head, the Captain carried the Spear of Herod Antipas, King of the Jews, which was the symbol of authority to perform the act; or else the Roman soldiers would not have permitted him to lift a finger to the men when he reached the place of execution.
Phineas, the ancient Prophet, had caused this Spear to be forged to symbolise the magical powers inherent in the blood of God's Chosen People. Already old as a talisman of power, it had been raised in the hand of Joshua when he signalled his soldiers to shout the great shout which crumbled the walls of Jericho. The very same Spear was which crumbled the walls of Jericho. The very same Spear was hurled at the young David by King Saul in a fit of jealousy. Herod The Great had held this insignia of power of life and death when he ordered the massacre of the innocent babes throughout Judea in his attempt to slay the Christ child who would grow up to be called the "King of the Jews". Now the Spear was carried on behalf of the son of Herod The Great, as a symbol of authority to break the bones of Jesus Christ.
When the party from the Temple Guard arrived at the scene of crucifixion the Roman soldiers turned their backs in disgust. Only Gaius Cassius remained to witness how these vassal of the High Priests clubbed and crushed the skulls and limbs of Gestas and Dismas nailed to Crosses on either side of Jesus Christ. The Roman centurion was so repelled by the sight of the dreadful mutilation of the bodies of the two thieves and so touched by Christ's humble and fearless submission to the cruel nailing that he decided to protect the body of the Nazarene.
Charging his horse towards the high central Cross, the Roman centurion thrust a Spear into the right side of Jesus Christ, piercing the chest between the fourth and fifth ribs. Such a manner of piercing was the custom of Roman soldiers on the field of battle when they sought to prove that a wounded enemy was dead; for the blood no longer flows from a lifeless body. Yet "forthwith came there out blood and water", and, in this moment of the miraculous flowing of the redemptive blood of the Saviour, the failing sight of Gaius Cassius was completely restored.
It is not known whether this veteran officer grasped the talisman of power from the hands of the Israelite Captain to perform this deed, or whether he carried out this spontaneous act of mercy with his own Spear. There is no historical proof to indicate with which weapon it was that he unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel: "They shall look upon Him whom they have pierced."
In the Temple where Caiaphas and Annas awaited news of the mutilation of the body of the Messiah, the Veil of the Holy of Holies was rent from top to bottom to expose the Black Cube of the Old Covenant which now split along its edges to open out into the form of the Cross. The imageless cult of Jehovah was ended; the religion of the "Open Heavens" had begun.
The Spear, like a catalyst of revelation, furnished the living proof of the resurrection for the physical wound from its tapering point was mysteriously sealed upon the risen Christ whn he appeared to the spiritual vision of his gathered Apostles. Only the doubting Thomas, trusting solely to the outer appearances of physical sight, failed to perceive the God-Man who passed through closed doors to appear to him.
"The saith He to Thomas, 'Reach higher thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless but believing.'"
Because the earthly wounds from the Spear and the nailing appeared upon the Phantom Body of the risen Christ, the first Christians believed that had his bones been shattered on the Cross, the Resurrection as we know it could never have been accomplished; for this was the meaning they attributed to the mysterious words of Isaiah; "A bone of Him shall not be broken."
Gaius Cassius, who had performed a martial deed out of the compassionate motive to protect the body of Jesus Christ, became known as Longinus The Spearman. A convert to Christianity, he came to be revered as a great hero and saint by the first Christian community in Jerusalem, and a prime witness of the shedding of the Blood of the New Covenant for which the Spear became the symbol.
It was said that for a moment in Time he had held the destiny of teh whole of mankind in his hands. The Spear with which he had pierced the side of Christ became one of the great treasures of Christendom and a unique legend attached itself to this weapon in which one of the nails from the Cross was later placed.
The legend grew around it, gaining strength with the passing of teh centuries, that whoever possessed it and understood the powers it served, held the destiny of the world in his hands for good or evil.
This legend, which has persisted throughout two millennia of Christendom, has seen it's most dreadful fulfilment in the twentieth century."

****

"There are two aspects to Shabbat: the dos and the don’ts. Shabbat begins Friday afternoon, 18 minutes before sunset," http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=201&o=73

I looked it up just in case, but I used to work for a Jewish family and they always celebrated starting Friday night. My best friend also works for Jews and they follow the same custom. Perhaps not all Jews follow this strictly, and my friend said something about a difference in the Orthodox, Chabad, and Sephardic distinctions in relation to it ... but that's just hearsay.

******

As to the question, "would you do it?" I can answer honestly and with all sincerity that I have no idea if I would or wouldn't. I don't know if I could kill anyone for any reason. I would like to say "yes" simply because it would be the right thing to do in this situation, though I realize that situations like these don't crop up too often. So I don't know, dafremen. What would you do?

posted April 24, 2004 06:11 PM         

Not to open an entirely new can of worms here (or maybe rather to)...

It seems to me that when Jesus decided to Incarnate, and in order to fulfill his destiny; another would have had to agree to take on the role of the betrayer, and the murderer, or case in point, murderers.

So that the people who needed to be in place at the time of the crucifixion would have been drawn there by their contract or destiny if you will.

This does not imply that they had no choice in the matter... at any point they could have, through Free Will, chosen an elsewhere to be... including Jesus himself.

That having been said... there are other points to ponder. Kahlil Gibran has channeled that no victim is without blame (read choice) in his own murder.

Additionally, it has been said that even Hitler went to Heaven. So why not Judas, and again, why not those directly responsible for the death of the Christ?

Personally I do not believe in Hell.. so there really is no other option than Heaven... is there?

In the grand scheme, are we not all One? Are we not all equally responsible for everything that happens on our Sorrowful Star? Certainly we have a choice. And isn't not choosing, or sitting by the sidelines and watching, making a choice? Is that not giving tacit agreement to whatever atrocities are commited?

It seems to me that the questions are much larger than the answers, and depending upon one's philosophy, the answers could certainly be legion...

Certainly they are a test of Faith.

Just some disjointed thoughts from the opinionated astrologer.

In the Light...
A

posted April 25, 2004 02:57 PM         

As to the question of would I do it, nope. I wouldn't want to carry the burden of taking away a life.

Though, I do agree with Aselzion. From the people I've talked with from the other side, most of the major events of your life are pretty well planned and set to happen. Even if you see them coming and want out, they will still come about in one manner or another. So, in that case: if the Jesus story is true and he was a great avatar, he would have been fully aware of the situation and all of the players involved.

still pondering, skywych

posted April 25, 2004 07:06 PM         

***

Sorry to change the subject for a second, dafremen.
What are your thoughts about the questions in your original post, if you don't mind sharing?

posted April 25, 2004 08:01 PM         

You can reprimand me, daf, for attempting to hijack your thread. Sorry. Please continue with your original topic and I'll do my best to stay in line.

posted April 27, 2004 02:55 PM         

I think that yes, part of the reason this happened the way it did was so that people would realize something they didn't before ... like immortality, forgiveness, faith. I'm not saying that these concepts weren't around at all before ... but then along came Jesus, preached about them and had perhaps one of the biggest struggles with these matters and followed through on his words.

I personally have never accepted the fact that just because Jesus died, humanity or his "followers" are saved. I think, to put it simply, he helped us realize that it is our duty to save ourselves. He taught, in a lot of ways, by example and in leading the life he professed. (I am not saying everyone needs to be sacrificed or resurrected to do this at all ... he simply showed the continuation of life beyond what a lot of people may perceive it to be.)

posted April 27, 2004 04:26 PM           

In another post called Woe, you might've read these words of warning:

quote:

---

Woe to those of you who point to Christ's example, claiming that mere belief in His sacrifice will save your souls. It is you who will be sacrificed if you fail to follow that example. If you will not do your Father's bidding, regardless of what is asked of you, then your cowardice and lack of faith will prove a stone so heavy that it will not roll away, but seal you in your tomb instead.

---

Makes sense to me. If I jumped off of a cliff to show you that it could be done, and then you stood up on the top of the cliff telling everyone that they don't have to jump as long as they believe that I did...well I'm no Jesus, so I'd be really PEESED .

In fact this whole thing has been upsetting me, especially around the bowel and stomach area.

To keep a running tally...so far noone would do it?

Noone would kill Jesus to save humanity? So who was wrong? God?

Or the folks that point to bloody human sacrifice as the answer to all of our spiritual problems?

The folks that justify and glorify an act of brutality by saying that it was divine payback courtesy of the Almighty?

You might also check out Testify to the Father if you haven't already. It's got some interesting things to say about this.

Love,

posted April 27, 2004 06:00 PM         

I don't think Jesus died for the "salvation" of humanity, especially when it's been construed to imply only those that believe in him. As for the absolving of sins, well, I don't really think we are born sinners. It's all a matter of choice to me, and those sorts of ideas remove the ability to choose a lot of things, especially considering that a lot of people think that because of that you will always be a sinner and never able to achieve a Christ like understanding. I think that's baloney since Jesus himself tried so hard to teach us that we each had such glorious potential and could do the things he did also, and that we are all God/dess' children.

So no, I don't think some higher being is giving out prizes for murder or being murdered. I think the point of it was that Jesus was here to teach some wisdom, live a life by example, etc. You must remember that his birth brought the dawning of the Age of Pisces. The previous Age of Aries was very much about war and tribes, etc. He was here to show another way for the future. Certainly, old ways and habits are hard to change, but I think it (the sacrifice and resurrection) was an important lesson, particularly for the people of that time period, to learn the extent of forgiveness and accepting the negative things that happen to you and trying to transmute them into something positive. He taught many lessons, but especially about karma in regards to our phyisical actions because that was the mentality of the people in that place and time ... he gave a perfect example that accepting and forgiving those who do all manner of things to you is the way to rise above the conflict. People still haven't managed to grasp that lesson, but slowly it is filtering in. He also taught some lessons about our thoughts, words, and feelings but those things were less generally respected in those days than even now. So he tried to help us cross a hurdle from the physical into the spiritual. We (humanity) still have yet to learn the lesson entirely, and then addres how to cross the hurdles from the mental and the emotional into the spiritual as well. A lesson is only as effective in teaching as the people being taught are as capable of understanding.

posted April 27, 2004 07:05 PM           

Love,

daf

posted April 27, 2004 10:19 PM         

I always try to be so careful with my spelling and that one slipped by me but I won't change it because you made a very good point on it, even though I hadn't noticed it before.

Keep on keepin on!

Oh, yes, as for the running tally, Tink gave a yes and I gave a maybe with strong leanings towards a yes.

posted May 05, 2004 11:58 PM         

It has been intriguing to me how people have argued (not here, but in magazines, radio, tv etc) over WHO exactly did kill the Christ. Because, those will argue, it was the Jews, no the Pharisees, no the Sanhedrians, no the Romans etcetc...when in reality, SIN is really the reason He died.

posted May 06, 2004 01:03 AM         

(btw, those same passages in John seem to indicate (to me anyway) who the real identity of John was(just another nutty "theory")...or perhaps they didnt edit heavily enough...)

posted May 06, 2004 01:16 PM           

Yea, Randall, Petron, that's certainly quite plausible. There is no reason to believe that it couldn't have gone down that way.

As for your comments on another thread Petron, which I DIDN'T care to address there, because this ISN'T a debate (practically synonymous with a battle of beliefs, minds and egos), I don't think that my point has EVER been to demonize Christianity, but rather to attempt to shed light where there is darkness.

Can there be any good reason for teaching people to drink blood and flesh in hope of salvation? It goes against those very universal religious concepts which you yourself have said that you embrace. Can there be any GOOD reason for turning the focus of a congregation toward the appeasment of the clergy? Again, it seems to be counterproductive when placed in the light of the "universal religious method."

You have thought, also, for a very long time, that I demonize science, mathematics, empiricists of all sort. I don't. What I have no use for, are men who focus themselves on science for the sake of their egos, reputations, their standing among men and posterity's view of them. Those who view the Creation as though it were a bug under a microscope.

In many ways, your confusion is understandable. You seem to be a man obsessed with the findings of your research, whereas I am a man who keeps stumbling into these things as I follow the path of my daily life..trying quite sincerely to live normally.

A saying I use from time to time is this: "Please, stop confusing your motives with my intentions."

THAT misunderstanding of my "intentions" remains the distance between us, a tragic thing, for you of all people should know that you are like a brother to me.

Your approach has been confrontational, perhaps mine has been as well, it's nice to see that the sharp edges are slowly being smoothed in your presentation.

Know this, old friend: you will NOT find a desire to point a finger and demonize ANYONE in me. You will only find a sincere desire to bring the Truth to light and let people form their OWN opinions. Perhaps it is my strong dislike for politics, intrigue and manipulation which gives such strong passion to my OWN presentation. (One reason that our gaming group has no leaders) People should NOT be led by their noses into exploitation by those in whom they've placed their trust. ESPECIALLY not their spiritual trust.

As always, love and best wishes to you all,

daf

posted May 07, 2004 12:26 AM         

Because, if I rebuke Buddah, then what is the difference if you rebuke Jesus? Most Biblethumping people will say "oh but Jesus is the ONLY way" ok...so, that is saying that what you believe in is a lie and a farce, and they also will say that is Satan's greatest lie...to believe that he doesn't exist and that religions other than Christianity are just a bunch of rubbish.