If you have the power to save a condemned innocent but look away, does this make you complicit in murder? Thousands of years ago, Pontius Pilate faced a dilemma: spare a man and anger the locals, or allow an execution of a "just" man and please the governed. Rather than undermine his precarious standing, the Roman governor chose the latter. "What is truth?" Pontius Pilate says to Jesus Christ. In these few words, Pilate reveals himself as the world's first postmodernist. Truth is not what matters, but power. Pilate refuses to exercise his power in order to maintain his power. He concedes the justice of sparing Jesus, but refuses to do so. Instead, he passes the buck to the mob. "And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man. Look you to it." No figure from Christ's Passion strikes us as so contemporary as the politician Pilate.

The Jews killed Jesus.

If it wasn’t for Pilate ‘washing his hands’, Christ wouldn’t have died on the cross and salvation would not have been attained. Unlike our contemporaries, it was meant to be.

Of course the Jews killed Jesus, I thought I made that clear in my movie.

Every United States Supreme Court Justice is a Pontius Pilate. May God have mercy on their souls for washing their hands leaving an innocent woman to her death.

While I certainly believe that there are parallels between Pilate and the leaders presiding over the Schiavo case, and that today is of all days the proper time to make such associations, I think questions of "postmodernism" and the relation of truth to power are misplaced.

Pilate's famous question, with all of its philosophical connotation, does not concern the truth of the charges brought against Jesus. Pilate was responding to Christ's claim that he entered the world "to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." It is a fascinating exchange that seems to have more to do with Pilate's chance at salvation than anything else.

The more interesting parallel, it seems to me, is Pilate's confrontation with two laws: (1) The Hebrew law - "We have a law, and according to that law he must die....", and (2) the Roman law - "...anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

Why does it matter now? People from all four major religions are constantly declaring holy wars on one another and saying that their god is the real and only. Obviously something is deeply flawed with our race as a species. If we cannot agree to disagree, on either side of the religious spectrum, we are doomed I tell yea. We will never make it in this capacity.

There is a bigger skeem and picture that should be able to be seen and then addressed. Think outside the Christ Box for a second

Joe Dirt's comments, on the other hand, are directly relevant to Pilate's question, though not on a par with its sophistication.

Pilate's angst over the death of Christ does nothing to excuse him from the evil he ordered committed. In choosing between killing an innocent man, and pleasing the masses, or doing what was right, against the tide of the people he chose the former. It was a decision that illustrated a moral bankruptcy of the worst kind, and Pontius Pilate is no less villainous than any of the much maligned Jewish High Priests.

Yes, Brad. Joe Dirt is simply assuming the falsity of "all four major religions" (?) or (more likely) assuming that asking about truth is quaint and stupid. Quid est veritas? Joe says: who cares! Why are we talking about Jesus when we could be discussing what really happened on 9-11!?

A person must be obtuse to not see this: if the story of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection are true then we shouldn't "think outside the Christ box," and there is no "bigger skeem [sic] and picture."

Sounds like Pilate might have been the Bill Clinton of his day.

What are the 4, anyways? Christain, Jew, Muslims, and what? Hindus? Give me a break, man. Maybe he meant Miscellaneous.

It's time for Jeb Bush to unleash the Florida National Guard. If Clinton can unleash the fury of the INS in order to deport a precious, innocent child to a communist country, over the wishes of Florida state court I might add, why can't Jeb Bush do the same thing for a precious, innocent woman who will otherwise starve?

Don't forget the Mormons Joe.

Hahaha bill clinton, that IS funny. What a crappy president. 4 more years 4 more years.

I assume Joe either forgot about the Mormons entirely or he was counting them as Christians.

The number four religion is Joe's own religion, "Gullible Leftist Crackpot." You can't deny the religious elements (it's a millenarian gnosticism with a touch of environmental neopagan superstition, and has developed its own creed and rituals and public cathartic dances and chants: "The people, united, will never be defeated!").

True, they experienced some set backs in the late 20c. But their numbers are growing right now, and they have practically conquered formerly Christian Europe with their superstitious conspiratorial garbage.

All attempts at radical translation of the "Gullible Leftist Crackpot" language have failed. Their linguistic behavior seems to rely on a non-logical form of life, thus making their practices inaccessible to humanity.

The Jews didn't kill Jesus. God killed
Jesus. He's the only one who could.

Jason:Christology's hard, but I think you make a mistake. Jesus didn't die qua God, he died qua man. Once the second person of the trinity humbles himself to become man, he can die just like any other man. Since Jesus's human nature is real and not illusory, God (presumably you mean the 1st person of the trinity) is not "the only one who could" kill Jesus.

But I think there is truth in what you say: Jesus as God freely became man: God is killable only because HE humbles himself in that way for our sakes.

Aquinas handles Jason's point by saying that Christ's executioners effected his death directly (in means and intention) but that Jesus caused his death indirectly through voluntarily undergoing that which he could have prevented.

Short,

Good observation. I think Brian finished your thought. Jesus said on the cross that if He wanted to, he could call down legions of angels to save Him, but He died by His own choice. As a human, He let the physical abuse inflict Him to death, but only through his submission was He able to die. He also commended his soul to the Father before it is recorded that He died (so He actually chose when to die on the cross).

This is an interesting debate. Because if Jesus said, "Father, I commend my soul to thee", that means He actually chose then and there to die. So was it really the pysical infliction that caused Him to die, or was it His deity that chose the time? I think Jesus may have had some control over this, but He knew that he needed to suffer in order for the new covenant to be fulfilled. In Jewish law, blood must be shed for a sacrifice to be atonement for sins. So Jesus knew very well that his blood would have to be spilled, that He would have to endure great pain for the new covenant to be established.

The rapture is coming, reurn to Venus, quick

The rapture is coming, return to Venus, quick

Since I have decided to play the part of a Thomist in this thread, Aquinas touches on your question, Christopher, in the same article I was making use of before (III.47.1).

Here is that objection and Thomas's reply in full (from the online version at NewAdvent.org):

"Objection 2. Further, those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted nature, and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified: for, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "Those who were crucified were tormented with a lingering death." But this did not happen in Christ's case, since "crying out, with a loud voice, He yielded up the ghost" (Mt. 27:50). Therefore Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself.

...

Reply to Objection 2. In order for Christ to show that the Passion inflicted by violence did not take away His life, He preserved the strength of His bodily nature, so that at the last moment He was able to cry out with a loud voice: and hence His death should be computed among His other miracles. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 15:39): "And the centurion who stood over against Him, seeing that crying out in this manner, He had given up the ghost, said: Indeed, this man was the Son of God." It was also a subject of wonder in Christ's death that He died sooner than the others who were tormented with the same suffering. Hence John says (19:32) that "they broke the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with Him," that they might die more speedily; "but after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." Mark also states (15:44) that "Pilate wondered that He should be already dead." For as of His own will His bodily nature kept its vigor to the end, so likewise, when He willed, He suddenly succumbed to the injury inflicted."

Seems a reasonable explanation of a deep mystery of the faith to me.

God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs eat man... true, true

Brian,

Very interesting ana*ysis. Indeed, sometimes crucifixion took days to cause death. The Romans did this mainly as a deterrent for crime and murder. Others seeing the brutality of the execution were less likely to commit a crime that would warrant this kind of death, because of the horrible suffering they would endure.

As is recorded in the Gospels, Christ died after just six hours on the cross. Seeing that the work was completed (Chris's atonement of sins for all), he spoke "It is finished" and then commended his spirit to the Father. So indeed, it was the Deity of Christ that ended his own life, not the physical infliction.

It is interesting that most scholars have noted that the cause of death in crucifixion to be auto-asphyxiation, as thought it would be incredibly hard to breathe in the position the crucifee was put in. But recent scholarly research makes a convincing claim. After recovering a skeleton dated back to the 1st century A.D., the scholar noted that a Roman nail was driven through the ankle from the side. This would mean that the romans drove nails through both ankles into the lower area of the cross, not one nail into both ankles through the cross, as most religious paintings depict.

Indeed, the three nails keeping Jesus on the cross depicts the trinity, but in reality, it was probably four nails that kept most men on the cross. If this is the case, then it would not be difficult for the victim to breathe, but rather, they would most likely die a very slow death from bleeding to death, or cardiac arest (shock).

Thanks Brian: That's fascinating. For anyone who wants a link to the Summa article Brian was quoting, here it is: www.newadvent.org/summa/404701.htm

With 2000 years under our belt, brilliant people have usually thought about our little theological puzzles before.

But... Christopher seems to have missed Thomas's point. "So indeed, it was the Deity of Christ that ended his own life, not the physical infliction." I think Brian and Thomas were saying: it was both, in different ways. Christ allowed himself to die *from the wounds*. Is that right, Brian?

Christopher implies the Christ's physical suffering wasn't enough to kill an ordinary man. This would take away all sense in which Christ's death was caused by his executors. Was God just putting on a show for us?

"Christopher implies the Christ's physical suffering wasn't enough to kill an ordinary man. This would take away all sense in which Christ's death was caused by his executors. Was God just putting on a show for us?"

The suffering on the cross was inconsequential to the sacrifice Christ made and the atonement for sins. In Jewish law, in order for atonement to take place, blood had to have been shed. It didn't matter how Christ died, all that mattered was that he sacrificed Himself, in whatver form that was prevalent then. As long as blood was shed, the new covenant would be established.

I think it is clear by the evidence of the gospels that the physical infliction Christ suffered would have killed Him if He spent more than 6 hours on the cross. But He didn't. Jesus knew that the suffering that He endured was long enough for the sacrifice, atonement, and covenant to be established, and then called on His Father to take His spirit. Again, it didn't really matter how long Christ was on the cross. Jesus, as Deity, knew that "it was finished" (the atonement of sins). The suffering death on the cross was only symbolic.

As I mentioned previously, scholars estimate that it usually took days for one to suffer death by crucifiction. Sometimes by dehydration, sometimes by cardiac arrest and shock. This is why the Roman soldiers broke one of the thieve's legs, in order to expodite death. They knew that normally, it would take longer for the thief to die, so they needed to inflict more suffering. This probably sent the thief into some kind of shock, increased bleeding, and so forth.

Christ didn't need to put on a show for us. Just as He could have called down legions of angels to save Him if He so choose, He also could have endured more pain than he did after six hours. But at that point, it was all inconsequential. The suffering was real, but everything, including His death, was symbolic. God's timing is perfect, and He knew exactly how much and long He needed to be on the cross to establish the new covenant.

Chris, I disagree. If one was to drive a 8 inch spike through your ankles and follow that by nailing your palms to a wooden stake that may be enough to send you into cardiac arrest. If you couple that with exposure to the elements and previous beatings there is a good chance that one could asphyxiate by not being able to have the strength to exhale. This has been the given scientific reason for his relative short time to expire.

Yes Short I was trying to follow Aquinas in keeping both elements, that Christ WAS killed by his executioners as well as that he WAS killed by his own will. There is no contradiction here b/c as Thomas indicates some effect can be caused in more than one sense. The executioners took *sufficient* steps in action and intention to kill Christ and Christ *allowed* the effect (His death) to follow from their actions. Note that Pilate was not surprised *that* he died, but only at how relatively quickly he died.

So both facets or perspectives are preserved, both human efficient causality in Christ's death as well as divine determination and will (causation) of that death.

Christopher says that, "The suffering death on the cross was only symbolic." Here you confirm my hunch that you are not in line with Brian's/Thomas's position. If we push your claim here, I think we'll end up in a form of monophysite denial of Christ's human nature. We want to avoid the ancient heresy in which Christ is said to be God only appearing, as in an illusion, in human shape. (I can't remember the name of this particular heresy.) Do you think you can avoid it while espousing your view of the passion?

I find that Thomas slices the subtlety very well. Someone can take something from you (against your will). Or you can give away something (act of your will). Neither of these can be right to describe how Jesus loses his life. Rather, Jesus allows himself to die from physical failure as a mortal -- by an act of his will, he allows himself to suffer the act of someone else's will. Isn't this the essence of the 'passion,' and implied in the incarnation itself? The last thing I want to do is turn Christ's incarnation, passion, death and resurrection into a symbolic illusion: it is supposed to be efficacious!

Regarding your timing problem, from what I've heard, the archeological evidence suggests that nailing was used in crucifixions only rarely; so if we assume that Jesus was scourged seriously and then nailed, then the point that crucifixions usually took days seems moot.

You don't even have to involve theology if you look at it based on perspectives.

Did Pilate do everything he needed from his perspective to wrongly condemn a man? Yes. Ergo, Pilate killed him.

Did the Romans do everything that they needed to do to kill Jesus? Yes. Ergo, the Romans killed him.

Did Jesus forgo miraculous rescue? Yes. Therefore the time that he died is immaterial. Barring some sort of resue it was only a matter of time. Jesus was dead before they came around to break the bones so that scripture could be fulfilled. Had he been alive they would have to try to break his legs. His legs are either broken or they are not. If they could not be broken, that in itself would be a miraculous life-sustaining measure. Thus the easiest method is to have him die before they came around to break the legs.

Both are true: Pilate and the Romans killed. Jesus surrendered. What more did the Romans have to do to kill Jesus? Break his legs. Since that was out, by scripture's own reasoning. Nothing.

Free Will vs. Election is fun to think about as well. But if we don't take both ends that scripture offers as mutually valid, then we can only approach it from our mere linear perspective. Without embracing the truth of each of these, we create a distortion simply for resolution that will fit into the mind of Man.

On a side note, it is interesting that this question is quite perplexing no matter what side you take of the Freewill vs. determinism argument on a secular grounds. If I have no freewill, then I am not free to know that or abandon that premise. If we have a freewill, it's source is nowhere apparent in nature. For this reason, Daniel Dennett and others argue that we have no freewill.

It only stands to reason, that from a matter of faith, freewill, if we have it, can only be described as the kernel of our image of God. To get on one end of the spectrum or the other and just pull the world that way makes no sense.

I will address a few arguments here:

"Chris, I disagree. If one was to drive a 8 inch spike through your ankles and follow that by nailing your palms to a wooden stake that may be enough to send you into cardiac arrest. If you couple that with exposure to the elements and previous beatings there is a good chance that one could asphyxiate by not being able to have the strength to exhale. This has been the given scientific reason for his relative short time to expire."

Echo Mike,

You are probably not aware of this, but the given scientific explanation has recently been countered by an expert on crucifiction who has been doing research to determine exactly how Jesus died. By using a skeleton, confirmed to be crucified in the first century A.D., he has determined that a nail was pounded into both ankles on each side of the lower side of the cross. Not one nail through both ankles, as many religious paintings exhibit. Also, the nails were likely to be pounded through a wooden base before entered into the skin, so as to provide a firm base so the nail would be held in place, and thus keeping the ankles and hands in place. This would allow the body to be supported firmly on the cross, making the chance for asphyxiation unlikely. The cause of death for most that were crucified was probably loss of blood or cardiac arrest.

Considering my belief that Christ's actual death was when He chose to end it, it is inconsequential what many scientists believe. Keep in mind that many victims of crucifiction were beaten by Roman soldiers. Mel Gibson's "Passion" provides a very brutal depiction of Christ's scourging, one that is probably inconsistent with Roman custom. It is generally believed that Christ's beating was not as harsh as Gibson portrays it to be. The Romans beat their victims before hand, more for a show of power and a public display of punishment.

"Christopher says that, "The suffering death on the cross was only symbolic." Here you confirm my hunch that you are not in line with Brian's/Thomas's position. If we push your claim here, I think we'll end up in a form of monophysite denial of Christ's human nature. We want to avoid the ancient heresy in which Christ is said to be God only appearing, as in an illusion, in human shape. (I can't remember the name of this particular heresy.) Do you think you can avoid it while espousing your view of the passion?"

Short,

I'm not concerned with any heresy. I am also not denying my claim that Christ was human. I believe that Christ was both human and deity. How else would you be able to explain all the miracles He performed? How else would you explain that He never once sinned? His deity prevented Him from having a human nature, even though he inhabited a human body. Do human bodies heal themselves after death and rise from the grave? Do human bodies have the ability to walk on water?

Of course you know the answers to these questions. That is why Christ did not have a human nature. He was deity in the body of a human. So I am not concerned about avoiding this claim you have mentioned. Christ did not "appear in human shape", but was above sin when born from Mary. As Christ was not conceived in sin, He did not inherit Adam's sin nature, as every other human ever born into this world has.

"Regarding your timing problem, from what I've heard, the archeological evidence suggests that nailing was used in crucifixions only rarely; so if we assume that Jesus was scourged seriously and then nailed, then the point that crucifixions usually took days seems moot."

As I commented to Brian, Jesus scourging in many depictions is inconsistent with Roman tradition. Also, if you look at John 20:25, you should be convinced that Jesus was indeed nailed to the cross. Doubting Thomas says, "Unless I see in His hands the print of nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."

It is easier to assume that Christ's feet were nailed to the cross, than to assume what you have said. Look at all four gospels. The only gospel that even mentions that Jesus was scourged is John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not say Jesus was scourged, but only mocked by the Roman soldiers after they placed a crown of thorns on His head. If there was any scourging, it was meant only to humiliate Jesus in the public sight before the crucifiction. Like I Commented to Echo Mike, Gibson's account of the scourging is very likely to inconsistent with what actually occurred.

Brian,

If you are not convinced by my argument, go back and read all four gospels, as I have done again. I am certain that it was not the physical infliction that caused Christ's death. In all four accounts of the crucifiction, all authors comment that Jesus cried out aloud (in some manner) that the work had been accomplished, commended His spirit to the Father, and breathed His last breath.

In Mark and Luke, the author notes that even the Centurion admitted that Christ was the "Son of God" or a "righteous man" because of how he died. Christ knew the work has been completed, and then submitted His soul, thus ending His life. Whatever infliction there was on Him physically was merely symbolic of the new covenant and the atonement for sins. Indeed, Christ suffered the pain of death, but He commended His own spirit. Death did not take it, rather, He had already conquered death, and three days later, proved it when His body rose again with His spirit reunited.

Christopher: (1) You accuse me of denying that Christ was God. You further accuse me of denying that he was nailed. You're misreading me. Christ is both fully human and fully divine; he was nailed (but nailing wasn't standard crucifixion procedure).

(2) "His deity prevented Him from having a human nature." To deny that Christ was human is to deny the realness of the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection from the dead of the Messiah. You are, if you mean this, not a traditional Christian at all. I'm not knocking you. Theology's hard. I just want to point it out. You should be aware, historically, where your theology fits in. And if you deny that He is really human, you should know that your theology isn't part of traditional Western or Othodox Christianity. There are some Middle Eastern Churches who are monophysites, but I don't think they go so far as to deny Christ's humanity.

(3) "Christ was both human and deity." This contradicts your claim that Christ doesn't have a human nature (to have a human nature is to be human, and vice versa: that's just what the words mean). I love theology. Notice that you are doing theology, and not just reading the bible. Now, I think theology is hard, but unavoidable if we want to seek an understanding of our faith. We both grant that Jesus is divine. Now make your choice: is Jesus human (with human nature) or not human (without human nature)?

In my Bible, Jesus is given the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangeably. He is also truly Mary's son, and therefore has the nature of His Mother. And we see Him doing all sorts of things that go with human, but not divine, nature - he eats, he sleeps, he works, he prays, and he ultimately dies.

Further, this dual nature is important to the theology of the Passion and Resurrection - Christ, as Man, offers to God what man must offer in atonement, and as God, that offering is both perfect and everlasting, an eternal act that man in his own power cannot do after the fall. He is called the Second Adam, for through Him all have come back to life, just as in Adam all fell. (It's in Romans, we had the very passage during Lent about a month ago.)

As for the argument of 'symbolic' suffering, I have to disagree with you, Chris. I don't know if you're Catholic, but I am so here goes, as best as I can explain my own understanding:

Christ, in the Gospels, says that He has power to lay down His own life and take it up again, and he tells Pilate that he has no power over Him unless it is given from above; this looks like support for the theory that Christ chose when to die, but it does not necessarily mean that the physical punishment wasn't the actual cause of death. He chose the moment, but not the means.

Nor is it necessary to say that the physical suffering was just a symbol. It's certainly true that the torment of separation from God and the weight of the sin of the world ("My God, why hast thou abandoned Me?") is the greater burden, but He suffered in the body, not as a mere symbol, but because we are both spirit and matter. His body bore a share of redemption of necessity. And remember that Catholic theology holds that a sacrament is not merely a symbol either, but a physical manifestation of that which it symbolizes - the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord, as the best example. It is a material means of grace (which is spiritual and unseen). Again, our God, who made us and knows us best, ministers to the whole man, body and soul and mind, not just to certain bits of him.

In a way, it works like a musical instrument. The violin itself is not the music, but neither is it merely a symbol of what you hear.

Hope that helps!

Hey Christopher,

You wrote to me: "If you are not convinced by my argument, go back and read all four gospels, as I have done again. I am certain that it was not the physical infliction that caused Christ's death. In all four accounts of the crucifiction, all authors comment that Jesus cried out aloud (in some manner) that the work had been accomplished, commended His spirit to the Father, and breathed His last breath."

But, I didn't think I was disagreeing with you very much at all before. I never denied that Christ commended his Spirit up or that that gave him a share in His death by meaning that He willed the moment of it. You even mention the Centurion's reaction when He cried out from the cross and your interpretation of that passage is exactly the same as the one Aquinas gave in the Summa article I posted above. So we don't disagree on that, but it seems as you explain your views further that you and I do disagree a good bit.

The basic issue is that you deny that Christ had a human nature, but if that is the case, then the Incarnation never took place and, well, the sacrifice in atonement of humanity's sins and even the Resurrection never took place in any effective way. Short is correct that this is the olden view called Monophysite which the Council of Chalcedon refuted in 451 A.D. I know it is difficult to conceptualize the idea of a "hypostatic" union of God and man (which are two "kinds" of Being) in one entity/being. But that is the mystery at the heart of Christianity, that God truly became man. The trick theologically is not to fall into emphasizing either Christ's divinity or his humanity at the expense of the other, since as Chalcedon declared:

". . . one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-Begotten is to be recognized in two natures unmixed, untransformed, undivided, unseparated, the difference of the natures in consequence of the unification being in no way abrogated, and the properties of each of the two natures remaining completely undisturbed."

So, since he was truly human the Romans were able to cause his death by crucifixion. They in fact did just that; both in action (they really nailed Him to a cross) and intention (they willed that He would die, and came around to break His legs to insure death). The fact that Christ commended his Spirit does not mitigate the Roman's complicity in his death.

As for the discussion about the likely manner in which Christ was nailed to the cross, as well as the relative brutality of his scourging, that is interesting but still just historical speculation. We really don't have all that much to go on since the Gospel writers do not give that level of detail.

Short wrote:
"You accuse me of denying that Christ was God. You further accuse me of denying that he was nailed. You're misreading me. Christ is both fully human and fully divine; he was nailed (but nailing wasn't standard crucifixion procedure)."

I didn't intend to accuse you of denying that Christ is God, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my beliefs here. My point is that Christ did not inherit Adam's sinful nature. He never sinned, was not born from sin, and therefore was God who became man. Since Christ's relationship as both man and God is very complicated, I don't see how we can claim that His nature was the same as every other man who has walked the earth. Perhaps you can give me an answer to this, but this perplexes me.

"To deny that Christ was human is to deny the realness of the incarnation, passion, death, and resurrection from the dead of the Messiah. You are, if you mean this, not a traditional Christian at all. I'm not knocking you. Theology's hard. I just want to point it out. You should be aware, historically, where your theology fits in. And if you deny that He is really human, you should know that your theology isn't part of traditional Western or Othodox Christianity. There are some Middle Eastern Churches who are monophysites, but I don't think they go so far as to deny Christ's humanity."

I am simply saying here that Christ did not inherit Adam's sinful nature, because He was not born of sin. This is repetitive of my first comment, but you get the point. I am not denying Christ's humanity either here, again, I think the relationship between deity and human is very complicated. Doesn't it make sense that if Christ never sinned, that he could not possibly have Adam's sinful nature?

As far as nailing victims to the cross. Because some were and some were not, we can't argue with accuracy anything on this subject, so we may as well drop it.

Nightfly wrote:
"In my Bible, Jesus is given the titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" interchangeably. He is also truly Mary's son, and therefore has the nature of His Mother. And we see Him doing all sorts of things that go with human, but not divine, nature - he eats, he sleeps, he works, he prays, and he ultimately dies."

I am not Catholic. I am non-denominational (specifically, Charasmatic-Evengelical). I don't mean to offend you, but Catholics believe that Mary ascended into Heaven (which I do not), and I think (correct me if i'm wrong) that they believe she has some kind of deity-like status. I believe there are prayers that are directed to Mary for intercession, which puzzles me. I don't understand why you would pray to Mary instead of to God (but I don't want to open a can of worms here, so...).

Because Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit (and not in sin), I don't believe Jesus inherits his mother's nature. This seems logically sound to me. What do you think?

"He is called the Second Adam, for through Him all have come back to life, just as in Adam all fell. (It's in Romans, we had the very passage during Lent about a month ago.)"

So if Christ is called the second Adam, why would he inherit Adam's sinful nature? Wouldn't it make more sense in your argument that the only way Christ could atone the sins of man is to live a blameless life? If so, it would be impossible for Christ to inherit Adam's sinful nature.

"Christ, in the Gospels, says that He has power to lay down His own life and take it up again, and he tells Pilate that he has no power over Him unless it is given from above; this looks like support for the theory that Christ chose when to die, but it does not necessarily mean that the physical punishment wasn't the actual cause of death. He chose the moment, but not the means."

I have said that it definitely would have been possible for Christ to die from the phsyical infliction. But he chose not to do this. He chose when to die, because he knew the work was completed. Since he chose the exact time to commend his spirit, how else could one interpret this? I still stand by my belief that the physical punishment was only symbolic, to shed blood for the atonement of sins and establish the new covenant.

"And remember that Catholic theology holds that a sacrament is not merely a symbol either, but a physical manifestation of that which it symbolizes - the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord, as the best example. It is a material means of grace (which is spiritual and unseen). Again, our God, who made us and knows us best, ministers to the whole man, body and soul and mind, not just to certain bits of him."

As a non-Catholic, I respect your belief in the sacraments and of the Eucharist. I do not hold the Eucharist's spiritual manifestation (or physical) to be true, because I see no biblical basis for me to do so. This is in reference, obviously, to the last supper. I do not see in scripture any reason to believe that every time I receive communion, that it is the actual body and blood of Christ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not possible, but different traditions believe different things. For example, most Catholics do not believe the gifts of the spirit are prevalent in our society today (speaking in tongues, prophesy). However, I have seen these things manifest in my life, therefore, I believe in them.

"Since Christ's relationship as both man and God is very complicated, I don't see how we can claim that His nature was the same as every other man who has walked the earth. Perhaps you can give me an answer to this, but this perplexes me."

The explanation has to do with the equivocation in the word "nature." Sin is part of human "nature" in the loose sense that we all do it and it's built into us somehow. But sin isn't part of human "nature" in the metaphysical sense. God created human nature, so it must NOT in itself include sin, right? So to describe the fall it's not best to say man's nature is fallen (that would imply a misunderstanding of the word "nature" or essence/form/soul of a human); rather, we want to say that man has fallen from his nature as created by God.

Thus Christ, if really human, really has human nature (this is just a matter of what the words mean). That doesn't mean he sins, because sin isn't really a part of _our_ nature either -- Christ shows us that, and through his death and resurrection gives us the grace to live it out.

Now when you say that Christ's suffering and death were only symbolic (i.e., not real), I think you are involved in the same fundamental rejection of the incarnation and thus of Christianity. It's all because you insist on pretending that the Bible says that he didn't die of his physical wounds. That is certainly not said. In fact, the Bible says that they put Him to death.

That was my point about theology: you're letting yourself pretend that your position is literally sola scriptura, but it's not. The bible says that He was killed. You are in fact using your mind and your tradition to help you understand scripture. There's nothing wrong with that. It's called theology.

Thus your quip is ill-founed against Nightfly that you don't believe the Eucharist because its not based in scripture. Of course you believe things that aren't based in scripture. Moreover, the Eucharist is deeply based in scripture as well as in the Jewish priestly tradition. Rather, the reason you don't believe it is that you read scripture through a tradition-lens that rejects the Eucharist. Therefore, you read those passages differently than did basically all Christians for the first millenia and a half after Christ.

"Now when you say that Christ's suffering and death were only symbolic (i.e., not real), I think you are involved in the same fundamental rejection of the incarnation and thus of Christianity. It's all because you insist on pretending that the Bible says that he didn't die of his physical wounds. That is certainly not said. In fact, the Bible says that they put Him to death."

First of all, you are not getting my point. I never said Christ's suffering wasn't "real". He suffered the physical infliction by the Romans. His suffering is symbolic in the sense that it didn't matter what kind of physical infliction was put on him, all that was neccessary was the act of suffering and the act of shedding blood. I don't know how many times I can say this. Have you not read my posts on atonement and the new covenant?

If Christ had the power to "lay down his life and take it up again", then why could he have not chose the moment to die on the cross? After realizing the work was accomplished, Christ commended his spirit to the Father, and He died. He suffered the pain and torture, but He gave up His spirit. Look at scripture! His pain and suffereing were only symbolic! He felt the pain, and it was real, but Christ endured it only for atonement of sins and to establish the new blood covenant.

"Thus your quip is ill-founed against Nightfly that you don't believe the Eucharist because its not based in scripture."

Ok then, provide me evidence through scripture that taking communion literally transforms the elements into Christ's actual body and blood.

"Of course you believe things that aren't based in scripture. Moreover, the Eucharist is deeply based in scripture as well as in the Jewish priestly tradition. Rather, the reason you don't believe it is that you read scripture through a tradition-lens that rejects the Eucharist. Therefore, you read those passages differently than did basically all Christians for the first millenia and a half after Christ."

What tradition, may I ask, am I looking through? I am non-denominational, and base my beliefs on what the Bible says. On nearly all matters, I rely not on another's interpretation or that of the Pope or a Council, but on what I believe the scripture says to be true.

Sorry Short, but you wrongly assume that some church or doctrine influences my beliefs. Although I do attend a non-denominational church, I take what the pastor says and thorougly examine the scripture. I read the Bible daily, comtemplate the word, and pray.

I find offense that you accuse me of being insincere about these matters. Provide me biblical evidence and support for your arguments, but do not accuse me of looking through a "tradition-lens".

Brian,

I am not Catholic, and do not hold the Vatican councils, Bishops, or Pope's word higher than any other human's interpretation, who is capable of sinning or erring. But for you, i'll indulge your argument and refer to an interesting passage in the Council of Chalcedon:

"There was in the Saviour no trace of the things which the Deceiver brought upon us, and to which deceived humanity gave admittance. His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the ranks of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favour. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God."

The council talks about Christ's dual nature of man and deity, but fully admits that Christ "did not share our sins" and "had no trace of things which the Deceiver brought on us."

Thus, Christ did not inherit the sinful nature of Adam.

There are inconsistencies in this doctrine. It says that Christ has both natures of man and God, but yet, He has no trace of sin and the things the Deceiver brought on us? Which is it going to be? This seems rather inconclusive a document to convince me of your argument.

Brian,

I am not Catholic, and do not hold the Vatican councils, Bishops, or Pope's word higher than any other human's interpretation, who is capable of sinning or erring. But for you, i'll indulge your argument and refer to an interesting passage in the Council of Chalcedon:

"There was in the Saviour no trace of the things which the Deceiver brought upon us, and to which deceived humanity gave admittance. His subjection to human weaknesses in common with us did not mean that he shared our sins. He took on the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, thereby enhancing the human and not diminishing the divine. For that self-emptying whereby the Invisible rendered himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things chose to join the ranks of mortals, spelled no failure of power: it was an act of merciful favour. So the one who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not detract from the form of God."

The council talks about Christ's dual nature of man and deity, but fully admits that Christ "did not share our sins" and "had no trace of things which the Deceiver brought on us."

Thus, Christ did not inherit the sinful nature of Adam.

There are inconsistencies in this doctrine. It says that Christ has both natures of man and God, but yet, He has no trace of sin and the things the Deceiver brought on us? Which is it going to be? This is a rather unconvincing document to prove the validity of your argument.

See, Christopher, you're just using words unclearly. When someone says that something is "only symbolic" they usually mean "not really real." So if you insist on using those words all I can say in response is that I don't understand what you mean by saying that Christ's death is "only symbolic."

Finally, I didn't accuse you of being insincere. I don't think you are. So, sorry if you thought I said that. Rather, I think that you are unaware of the influence the "nondenomenational" born-again tradition has on you. You say that you aren't influenced by any tradition because you rely on scripture alone. Even this sola scriptura insistence is inherited from a tradition -- that of American adaptation of Lutherinism and Calvinism. It like a teenager who says that he is dressing like every one else because he wants to be different. You are part of a tradition that claims it won't allow any tradition to influence it.

The influence is there. You just won't see it.

Thanks for the response CJD. I am reverting to my original position that we really do not disagree with each other ALL that much on the issues focused on in this thread.

Where we seem to be hitting one snag is on what human nature is, particularly since you think Adam had a "sinful nature." But I don't think Adam had a sinful nature at all, but yet, he sinned. I agree with Short that we are using the term nature too loosely to come to agreement w/ each other. Lucifer as well did not have a sinful nature as he was created with an angelic nature . . . but yet he turned from God and thus corrupted himself.

It is true that all humans now share in the guilt of the original sin of Adam, rather mysteriously even, after the Fall and expulsion from Paradise. But this corruption isn't properly human "nature." It seems to me that in the Genesis account when God creates Adam and Eve in his image and then declares that "they were very good" (Gen. 1, 26-31), He is indicating that their very natures were good. Human nature is thus originally (and in fact always in essence) good so when Christ takes on a human nature He is taking on our nature as actually created by God and intended by Him. The historical fact of our failure to live up to the demands of our nature (a result of misuse of free-will) doesn't mean that our nature contains sin but only that we allow sin into ourselves/our wills.

I think the Chalcedon quote you provide backs this interpretation up for it mentions that Christ underwent temptations as all humans do (because of the entreaties of evil people or the Devil's machinations) but that Christ's will was perfect and He thus never responded appetitively to temptation and so never sinned. I like the point the quote makes that Christ did not share in sin because He did not assent to the Devil's suggestions "to which deceived humanity gave admittance." It is b/c Adam and Eve "gave admittance," that is, "willed" the evil, that Satan suggested to them that they sinned, this action of a human (freely choosing evil) IS part of human nature, and Christ shared that, but he never in fact abused this freedom. Just because humans have the possibility to sin (b/c we have free-will) does not mean it is according to our nature or even "natural" for us to do so. This is indicated by the language we use for sin, that it is "perverse." A perversion is by definition "unnatural."

As for being Catholic or relying on popes, councils, etc., I am not really interested in all that in the context of our theological discussion either. I just love debating theology (and politics, philosophy, film, and baseball) and am trying to get the understanding of these issues straight. The fact that Aquinas or the various councils dealt with these issues just means there are people smarter than me that I can turn to, to gain insight into the Bible. I agree with you that we need to "start with the source," the Bible, but I see no need to reinvent the wheel completely when others have also reflected hard and long about particular questions that consume us.

Ah, it's good to see the classics in current circulation! =) We do not pray TO Mary. Nor do we accord her diety, having no more power to do that than the Romans had to elevate dead Emperors to the status of gods.

Mary is held up as our model, the greatest of the saints, and the doctrine of her assumption into heaven is not meant to confer her equal status to her Son. The Hail Mary prayer is basically cribbed from Scripture - the angel's salutation and Elizabeth's - and followed by a request for Mary to pray for us.

Nor was she conceived of the Holy Spirit. She had a full set of human parents. Her Immaculate Conception meant that God, to prepare her for the day when she would bear the Savior, preserved her from sin through a miraculous act. But until Christ died for us (and for her!) she still was of Adam's race and could not reach Heaven. I think that her assumption was meant to reaffirm that the way was open; and on another level, well, she is His mom and what good Jewish boy doesn't take good care of his mom?

In turn Mary points always to Christ - "Do whatever he tells you to." Her example is meant to be a model to emulate.

When Christ is called the second Adam, it isn't meant to imply that He is sinful, and the Bible makes it clear that He is "like us in all things, save sin." It means A) that He is truly human and B) like Adam, who is the source of natural human life, He is the source of spiritual human life; "just as through one man, Adam, death came to all, so through Christ all are brought back to life." (That last is a paraphrase, I confess!)

As for the Eucharist, Catholics simply take John 6 at face value, since nowhere does Christ (or the evangelist) say that it is a symbol or parable, unlike every other place where Jesus does use symbolism or parable. (I've always found it ironic that sola scriptura somehow exempts this passage from literal interpretation.) That, as you say, is a whole nother can of worms; anyone else better versed in the theology can step in here to help the both of us. I know it's true but I can't say much about how.

Chris,

I find Short to be on the mark on the connotation of "only symbolic". And I think Short is accurate on the subject of tradition. And I say that as a nondenom, evangelical ex-Catholic. I have long been skeptical of the "sola scriptura" claim.

I think we can go wrong trying to pluck splinters out of people's eyes. This is why I am a nondemon. This is the value of nondemoninationalism to me. Catholics do have a verse that they base the Eucharist claim on. Jesus said if you don't eat his body and drink his blood you can have no part of him. Catholics may over-literalize this, in my opinion, but none the less they differ from us by interpretation, not by grafting something alien onto the Bible.

Marionism is something that only some Catholics get into. My mother is a big Marion, and I think it's heresy. But I've also met anti-Marion Catholics. (Or at least Marion-lite.) As a adult Protestant ex-Catholic, I can attest that some of the stereotypes that Protestants have of Catholics are just silly overexaggerations. I have met a few ex-Catholics as well who have found themselves as apologists for Catholics.

My mother's Marion notwithstanding, she said something to me when I became a believer which suggests to me that while she may practice a strange brand, she recognizes the core of Christianity. She said, "Well, as long as you believe in Jesus."

So I think where you messed up was in trying pluck splinters. Myself, I am happy enough to say I am not a Catholic, not because of what Catholics do, but just that I do not do what would make me a Catholic. I'm like you, I am not under the authority of Catholic theologians. (Some Catholics would argue the same thing, no less.)

The Bereans, whom Paul commends, search scripture for everything before accepting the words of God's own chosen preacher. Paul commends that. I cannot reconcile that with a Church that has at different ages taught that laymen shouldn't read the Bible. It conflicts with the plainest reasoned interpretation of Paul's praise for the Bereans. It also conflicts with another passage where Paul says that the Holy Spirit illuminates the Bible for us (of course he gives us a check in telling us to consider the opinions of others better than our own).

Thus, reading the Bible is not a problem to be matched by the understanding of traditional arguments but by a combination of inspiration---and what has often been left out---humility. Now humility plays a role in accepting tradition, but inspiration transcends tradition. Tradition is not necessary, but perhaps helpful.

Anyone who has seen the movie Luther, can see that one man's (educated) rebellion lead to a series of liberal rebellions. Therefore the Church has some validity in suggesting that free readings of the Bible, should be avoided.

So I both agree and disagree with Short. But I try to do it in a way that I have found to be the better way: I own my readings. If I make an interpretation, I admit that it is an interpretation, and not the word lowered down on God's crane. (Keep in mind, I'm accusing neither of you with violating a standard of humility.)

But in trying to sum my viewpoint in this debate, I've gotten away from the topic. Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

As Short suggested, it is impossible to rid ourselves of interpretation, But, we can avoid wedding ourselves to only one. We can look at this in the broadests of senses. With that in mind, I would argue that a spectrum of readings still invites the idea that what we have on the cross is a revelation of a deeper reality of Christ's death.

It can suggest a hidden reality that was revealed on the cross. Thus what took place out of the sight of man, is now brought into view. Thus it suggests not so much something put on for show, but a deep and fundamental reality brought to our sight. (I'm not imputing to you that it was just for show, but just want to mention the antithesis of that general meaning.)

Another reading might suggest that this verdict has weighed over Jesus for quite some time. It was a truly dreadful event, but still the Father's waiting to do this in full view of mankind, smacks of the much more central nature of this sacrafise. It is a sacrafice "in heaven" to some degree---writ large. It seems that Jesus knew from the beginning of the world, that he would be separated from God, knew that to become man was to meet this separation and it was only a matter of thirty some years until he would feel this pain.

But I don't know. Perhaps we are already saying the same thing. I just wanted to state some things about what I understand of Catholicism and inject the "foundation of the world" side of things, in case it had been forgotten.

Short,

I never said Christ's death was symbolic, but that His suffering was. Now that you bring it up, I can see the confusion here. So I would say that Christ's suffering was both real and symbolic. Real in the sense that he suffered under the Romans, and symbolic in the sense that it mattered not where and how he suffered. Maybe symbolic is not the best word to use here, so I apologise. What I was trying to say, was that it mattered not how Christ suffered or died, but only that His blood was shed, and that he willingly layed down his life for the atonement of sins.

"Rather, I think that you are unaware of the influence the "nondenomenational" born-again tradition has on you. You say that you aren't influenced by any tradition because you rely on scripture alone. Even this sola scriptura insistence is inherited from a tradition -- that of American adaptation of Lutherinism and Calvinism. You are part of a tradition that claims it won't allow any tradition to influence it."

Of course I have been influenced from different people's interpretation of scripture, and obviously, I read a non-Catholic Bible, so my beliefs come from the Protestant tradition. But make no mistake, I have never, nor will ever, submit to any church or become a member of a church that does not allign with my beliefs on scripture.

Heck, I currently attend a church right now that I love going to. I am involved with the ministry there, and do a lot of work. But I don't think I will officially join it, because they do not believe in certain aspects of my faith that I deem to be important. The fundamental aspect in my sola scriptura view, is that I am open to anyone's interpretation of scripture, but do not submit to any man, council, or church who claims that it's interpretation is incapable of erring.

I agree whole-heartedly with what Sea King said. The Holy Spirit has enabled all men to read the scripture and come to God's truth.

I'll respond to everyone else tommorrow...i'm exhausted. Good night.

Christopher: If this statement of your were completely true ("The Holy Spirit has enabled all men to read the scripture and come to God's truth."), then all interpretors of the Bible would be incapable of erring. Thus, rather than saying that you won't submit to any one else's interpretation of the bible, you should say that you will submit to everyone's. That's absurd, so we should allow that not everyone who reads the Bible walks away understanding the good news.

Sea King: I loved your reflections. You seem to have an angle that would allow a good understanding of both traditions here.

Let me distinguish two points I think are important about tradition: 1) the first, very simple, Gadamerian point that I made to chrisopher: we all think inside traditions, we should try to be aware of how the traditions influence us. So the individualist sola scriptura angle is naive philosophically.

2) Is our scripture independent of tradition? I'd say it's not. There is only one Gospel, which was originally spread via oral teaching by the apostles. There are four canonical written expressions of this Good News; they were written well after the events described took place, sometimes by people who didn't witness the events themselves, and became accepted (cannonical) because they were expressions of the faith of the community. The NT scripture is just a written expression of (and thus a derivitive form of) the faith of the community of brethren that formed around the teaching of the apostles. That teaching-based faith of the community is, therefore, prior to NT scripture. Insisting on sola scriptura justification thus undercuts the foundation of scripture.

Prior to the written NT, this community of brethren had established beliefs and practices, such as baptism, priests, ordination, the eucharist. So why should we have to base those things biblically? They preexist the written forms of the Gospel according to MMLJ.

That faith of the community of brethren formed from the apostolic teaching is thus the primary locus of Christian revelation; written expressions are derivative.

So regarding your reference to Paul: "The Bereans, whom Paul commends, search scripture for everything before accepting the words of God's own chosen preacher. Paul commends that." Paul doesn't say (I assume) that everything must be scripturally based... Don't you think this would have undermined the ability to have any new information in the Good NEWS or the NEW Testament?