# Sobre la crucifixión



## sinclair001

Esta forma de ejecución en la antiguedad, creada por los persas, difundida por los fenicios y cartagineses fue tomada luego por los romanos.
En la crucifixión, el travesaño horizontal se denominaba _patibulum _y el tronco vertical al cual se ajustaba el patibulum se denominaba _stipe_. Para alargar el proceso y que el ajusticiado no muriera rápidamente por asfixia, estaba un _sedile_, en el cual se sostenían los pies.
Muchas representaciones pictóricas sobre Jesús le muestran arrastrando completamente la cruz, tanto el _patibulum _(horizontal) como la _stipe _(vertical).
En la educación de cada país y dependiendo del marco confesional ¿cuales son los intereses e impactos culturales de la crucifixión?


----------



## Hotu Matua

En México, donde casi un 90% de la población es católica, la imagen de un Jesucristo sufriente y bañado en sangre sobre la cruz se ha quedado "clavada" (valga la ironía) en la mente de millones de niños por generaciones.
El 10% restante, en su mayoría protestante, aprecia el simbolismo de la cruz pero no presenta al Cristo agonizando en ella: sólo la cruz desnuda.
Los testigos de Jehová, muy comunes en México, creen que Jesucristo murió sobre un tronco (sólo la stipe) y los mormones prescinden totalmente del símbolo de la cruz, porque prefieren pensar en un "Cristo resucitado y vivo" más que en su instrumento de tortura.

Muchas mujeres llevan cruces o crucifijos como ornamentos en el cuello, aunque creo suponer que se ven cada vez menos.

En el lenguaje popular usamos fórmulas que se refieren a la cruz
"La cruz de su parroquia" "Es la cruz que le tocó cargar". "No me crucifiquen". El taxista llama su "cruz" al primer pasajero del día.
Las personas se persignan como conjuro protector ante un peligro.


----------



## sinclair001

Que interesante tu comentario HotuMatua, en el contexto del lenguaje diario no sabía que los taxistas llamaban "su cruz" al primer pasajero del día. De hecho, esta escena me hace acordar también de una vez en Bogotá D.C., que fui primer pasajero de un taxista y cuando le pagué el servicio, se persignó con la mano derecha que también tenía el dinero.


----------



## sinclair001

_El Diccionario Teológico del Nuevo Testamento _refiere “los Persas inventaron este modo de ejecución.  Ellos lo hicieron para no manchar la tierra con la sangre el cuerpo de la persona ejecutada, ya que estaba consagrada a Ormuzd.” (Pág. 16). 

Los griegos llamaban a la crucifixión _stauros_ (madera en griego, que se tradujo como _crux _en la Vulgata Latina) y se dice que Iskandar el Rum (Alejandro Magno) la introdujo en Egipto y Cartagena. 

De los _patibulum_ se menciona que podían tener un peso entre 30 y 60 kilogramos. Los prisioneros eran atados  al patibulum y la única forma de poder caminar con esta pesada carga, era inclinando el tronco hacia adelante. Una vez en el sitio de la ejecución donde estaban eregidas las estipes, tenía lugar la sujeción con clavos. Estos clavos medían entre 11 y 18 cms, los verdugos eran diestros en la colocación de éstos, describiéndose que los colocaban en la zona de la muñeca y para colmo del refinamiento de la tortura, no herían las arterias, para evitar el desangramiento. Ya asegurados los brazos, procedían a izar al condenado, hasta que el patibulum encajaba en una muesca en la estipe vertical.


----------



## Hotu Matua

En muchos países lationamericanos (no sé si en España también) las caras de una moneda se conocen como "cara" y "cruz".
En México, sin embargo, usamos "águila" o "sol". Existe un bien conocido ensayo de Octavio Paz con este nombre.


----------



## tvdxer

Some English expressions:

"to bear a cross" - to carry on with something negative...e.g. "She bore many crosses through her life: her mother dying when she was 10, her husband leaving her for another woman, her savings lost"
"the crux of the matter" - A setback, thorn, etc.


----------



## steffiegomez

sinclair001 said:


> Que interesante tu comentario HotuMatua, en el contexto del lenguaje diario no sabía que los taxistas llamaban "su cruz" al primer pasajero del día. De hecho, esta escena me hace acordar también de una vez en Bogotá D.C., que fui primer pasajero de un taxista y cuando le pagué el servicio, se persignó con la mano derecha que también tenía el dinero.


Sinclair,
En México, especialmente en los mercados, o con los vendedores ambulantes, ellos se "persignan" con la primera venta del día, y es una forma de agradecer...Incluso he visto a personas que piden limosna, o limpian los parabrisas en los altos de los semáforos persignándose con las primeras monedas que reciben. Entre regateos las "marchantas" (que son tanto compradoras como vendedoras en mercados) te dicen: "ándele señito (que no es ni señora, ni señorita, para no errar), cómpreme para que me persigne con usted".
La cruz presente...
Saludos


----------



## sinclair001

Hi tvdxer, interesting comment upon crux and bear crosses; BTW, ¿do you know a sort of oath stating ¿ you can cross my heart ? I remember I hear this on a movie long time ago.

Steffi, interesante esto que comentas, es una llamativa forma de agradecimiento al Dador de todo por poder contar con ese recurso.
Y al mismo tiempo, a uno se le puede antojar que roza con lo profano, por conjugar algo material con algo divino.

El tema de la crucifixión tiene una enorme influencia en el inconsciente colectivo, que se manifiesta como muchas alegorías que encadenan símbolos: una encrucijada es una disyuntiva.... una situación crucial... cargar cada uno su propia cruz, como lo refirió tvdxer... y su uso como jaculatoria para invocar la deidad.... la cruz invertida que eligió San Pedro.

Los romanos consideraban la crucifixión como algo infamante y solamente era reservada a esclavos y criminales. Si un condenado podía demostrar que era ciudadano romano "_Civis romanus sum_" era decapitado.
En su época, solamente las autoridades romanas tenían la potestad de ordenar crucifixiones. Tanto es así, que el "juicio" de Jesús, llevado tan sesgadamente por Caifás solamente con algunos miembros del "pequeño Sanedrín" y pleno de maquinaciones para poder llegar a la instancia del procurador Pilatos, tuvo como intención que se aplicara la pena capital romana y no la judía.


----------



## Coffee Marin

También se ha venido pretendiendo por el *cristianismo* apelar a la compasión, a la emotividad por _*la pasión*_, *la crucificción* de Jesús, para captar seguidores y alejarlos de la realidad, y así poder explotar y canalizar hacia ellos el potencial de producción del capital humano.


----------



## sinclair001

Y cuando se deseaba rematar al crucificado, estaba el _crurifragium _o _skelocopia_, quer consistía en que se fracturaban las piernas con una barra de hierro, o un mazo; a veces se cortaban con hacha.
Eliminado el punto de sostén de los miembros inferiores, la asfixia sobrevenía rápidamente y es posible también que hubiera un componente de embolismo pulmonar, de coágulos formados en las venas de las piernas inmovilizadas por tanto tiempo.

I was looking the trailer available on internet on The passion, and the representation depicts Jesus bearing patibulum and stipe altogether. It catchet my attention, because this movies had a lot of historical supporting, but the facts given the tremendous punishment inflicted to Jesus by double scourging, beating him with 80 whippings instead of the usual 40, makes hard to believe even in a home plenty of stamina as he was, that he could bear the weight of almost 40 to 60 kg of the patibulum, plus the stipe.

Coffee, estuve meditando sobre tu comentario, de alguna forma la _ecclesiam_ (asamblea) de los primeros tiempos tuvo que asumir un papel político para lograr reconocimiento externo y en esta medida, creó un mensaje a propósito de la figura de Jesús, donde el tema de mayor importancia fue la resurrección porque era "lo palpable", el punto de inflexión y de recuperación de credibilidad para un grupo humano que aguantó presión y persecución de autoridades civiles tanto judías como romanas.
En los primeros tiempos fue muy difícil para este grupo la oposición al _status quo _de orden político ligado a la religión, de modo que de alguna forma, ese modelo se incorporó a la naciente asamblea. Y luego, todo el conjunto de creyentes recibió la investidura del poder temporal cuando el emperador Constantino hacia 325 declaró al cristianismo como religión oficial del imperio romano, donde, dicho sea de paso, Constantino se reservaba para sí la supremacía. Sin duda, el tema de la búsqueda de seguidores y de capitalización de capital humano se hizo más patente cuando la suprema cabeza en tiempos de Carlomagno se empezó a ver como un señor feudal por la tenencia de tierras, concepto que luego fue llevado al culmen por Odón de Lager, el pontífice que dió inicio a las Cruzadas.


----------



## JamesM

sinclair001 said:


> I was looking the trailer available on internet on The passion, and the representation depicts Jesus bearing patibulum and stipe altogether. It catchet my attention, because this movies had a lot of historical supporting, but the facts given the tremendous punishment inflicted to Jesus by double scourging, beating him with 80 whippings instead of the usual 40, makes hard to believe even in a home plenty of stamina as he was, that he could bear the weight of almost 40 to 60 kg of the patibulum, plus the stipe.


 
But he didn't carry it all the way, according to the gospels of Mark and Luke. They conscripted a man from the crowd of bystanders (Simon of Cyrene) to carry it part of the way for him because he was unable to do so.


----------



## sinclair001

James M
The idea to mention about bearing of patibulum and stipes as a whole has non-sense because the usual way to do was to tie both arms to the patibulum so the defenseless "dead man walking" undergo scourging all the way. And the trail showed a person with both arms untied, bearing the whole cross in one shoulder. That is my point: the picture shows something different from the historical reality, but usually the movies do.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello,
What I don't understand, and please if I'm disrespectful delete me, is why the Christians chose to depict a dying man hanging from an instrument of torture as a symbol of their religion.
It is terrible to see his body with all the blood and the hurts and the suffering.
Even if it is just a painting.
If what was important was the resurrection, why choose death?


----------



## sinclair001

Alexa: 
¡¡What a good question!!
If you do not mind to read in spanish, I found this link, maybe could be useful

I like the highlighted paragraph in the link, which I translate
"_If the suffering has no value whatsoever in itself because the most of times is destructive, sometimes are the times which demmands -in order to keep faithful and trusteable to one love-, one should bear an non-understandable suffering._"
I hope this answer somehow answer your question.


----------



## sinclair001

In the "Magic Circle" Katherine Neville makes a deep symbolic comparison _"Through a Druid priest, we are shown the Christ connection with the great Celtic god *Esus*, lord of the netherworld, of wealth sprung from the earth—very Plutonian. Those who sacrifice themselves to *Esus* *must hang upon a tree in order to gain true wisdom and the knowledge of immortality.* "He sacrificed himself to enter the *Magic* *Circle* where truth resides, in order to achieve divine wisdom and spiritual immortality"_
Cross, or three are akin symbolically.


----------



## sinclair001

Un fragmento de Salambo (de Gustavo Flaubert) sobre la crucifixión de Hannón uno de los generales cartagineneses:
"....creyeron (_los soldados de Matho_) no tener cuerdas suficientes para izarle (_a Hannón_) a lo alto de la cruz y lo clavaron encima de ella antes de que fuese alzada, al modo púnico".
Flaubert G: *Salambo. *Colección "Novelas inmortales" Número 7. Sarpe Impreso en España. pp 231


----------



## faranji

alexacohen said:


> Hello,
> What I don't understand, and please if I'm disrespectful delete me, is why the Christians chose to depict a dying man hanging from an instrument of torture as a symbol of their religion.
> It is terrible to see his body with all the blood and the hurts and the suffering.


 
My dearísima Alexa,

You've reminded me (for the empteenth time in these fora!) of Lenny Bruce. This time, this line of his:

_Ok, I admit it, we Jews did kill Christ. And you’re lucky he didn’t come along in the 20th century, or all those parochial school kids would be wearing a little electric chair around their necks. _


----------



## sinclair001

El sitio de la crucifixión elegido por los romanos era un sitio de roca caliza, que facilitaba la inserción de las stipes.
Como la zona no tenía vegetación, era un calvero que popularmente fue conocido como lugar de Calavera, Golgotha en griego, gulgultha en arameo, quieren decir cráneo, el cual se traduce como calvarium en latín. De aquí deriva el término calvario.


----------



## John Carter

alexacohen said:


> Hello,
> What I don't understand, and please if I'm disrespectful delete me, is why the Christians chose to depict a dying man hanging from an instrument of torture as a symbol of their religion.
> It is terrible to see his body with all the blood and the hurts and the suffering.
> Even if it is just a painting.
> If what was important was the resurrection, why choose death?


 
Hello Alexa,
Roman Catholics genuinely do not understand your question.
They do not see the crucifixion as a symbol of death although the symbolism is inescapable.
The crucifix exists because of the ease of reproduction.
Jews need to be quite dexterous to draw or reproduce the Star of David.
Catholics just need to tie a couple of sticks together or draw two intersecting lines and they have their religious icon.  It is reproduced in sword hilts and so was associated with the most devastating personal combat weapon possible.

ZJC


----------



## John Carter

My question would be of the talents of a salesman convincing the flock to follow with proof positive being that an immortal God could not be crucified therefore believing mortals will not die and disbelieving mortals will die.
 
I would have been more impressed if all three parts of the Trinity copped the chop at the same time but to just send the Son while the Father and the Holy Ghost maintained vigil is a cheap trick by any standards.
 
ZJC


----------



## alexacohen

John Carter said:


> My question would be of the talents of a salesman convincing the flock to follow with proof positive being that an immortal God could not be crucified therefore believing mortals will not die and disbelieving mortals will die.
> 
> I would have been more impressed if all three parts of the Trinity copped the chop at the same time but to just send the Son while the Father and the Holy Ghost maintained vigil is a cheap trick by any standards.
> 
> ZJC


 
Hi John:
I don't know anything about this except hearsay. I don't dare discuss your religion, I know almost nothing about it.
The only thing I can say is that crucifixion was never a Jewish punishment, but a Roman one.
Spartachus was crucified too. If not himself, part of his defeated army. They were slaves, and they defied senatus populusque romanus. Their crime was a political crime: a revolt against the Republic.
To me, Jeshua was a Jewish Rabbi. I don't want to hurt anyone. I'd rather discuss Spartachus crucifixion, if there was one, than Jeshua's.


----------



## Fernando

alexacohen said:


> Hello,
> What I don't understand, and please if I'm disrespectful delete me, is why the Christians chose to depict a dying man hanging from an instrument of torture as a symbol of their religion.
> It is terrible to see his body with all the blood and the hurts and the suffering.
> Even if it is just a painting.



At the beginning the cross was one of the many symbols Christians used (along with the fish, as an example). Most symbols are imposed by the non-believers, not by the believers. I am not certain in this particular case.

Anyway, I can not see nothing wrong since "the dying man" is Jesuchrist, the founder of our religion and living God.

It is God suffering on behalf of usWe see no blood, we see Glory.



alexacohen said:


> If what was important was the resurrection, why choose death?



Apart that the resurrection lacks an icon to represent it, the most emotive point is the death. It is the lowest point, when everything seems lost.

If you want equivalents, for the Serbs the symbol is Kosovo, for the shiites is Kerbala, for the British is the charge of the Light Brigade... all defeats.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello Fernando:
I don't feel at ease with this topic at all; it's too dangerous and potentially hurtful.
John Carter's explanation makes sense to me: a cross is an easy to make symbol.

But a fish is as easy to draw. It stood for Ictus, Ίχθὐς in Greek, didn't it?
Ὶησοῦς Χριστὀς Θεοῦ Ὑιὁς Σωτἠρ
Jesus Christ son of God, our Saviour?
(my Greek is quite forgotten, sorry for misspellings). 
I understand this better than the cross. 
For me, a cross is a symbol of torture and death. A terrible way of dying. It doesn't matter if it is God's suffering or a man's suffering. It's still suffering.
I think I will never be able to understand it. 
The things you mention can't be equivalents. It is as if the French people carried guillotines hanging from their necks.

So here we go again, you and I. Shall we ever agree?


----------



## Outsider

For some insight into the Catholic perspective I suggest reading this essay, particularly the last section, called "Behold the Man".

Christ's crucifixion is a horrid event, but it was also through it that he redeemed mankind, and that he _became fully human_. Whenever a man or woman suffers, no matter how downtrodden they may be, Christ will be there _with_ them sharing the pain.

Or so I understand it.

I can see how this idea can be read as a doctrine of compassion. (As Milan Kundera observed, in the languages of Western Europe the word "compassion" etymologically means "shared pain". )


----------



## chaya

Dear Alexa,
I too found it shocking when for the first time I travelled around catholic countries, where at every turn, even high up in the mountains or in the countryside on lonely roads there were horrific effigies of a  man covered in blood, hanging from a cross. This used to give me nightmares!   As Jesus was known to be a  a Semite, it is also puzzling to see him depicted as a blond with European features.


----------



## sinclair001

John C: are you somehow refering to the oxymoronic concept "man who create God"?


----------



## sinclair001

Very appealing this link:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/19610.html
Mentions the first dated pictorial representation of a crucifixion, in the so called "Rabula Gospels", the first dated christian manuscripts.
And the earliest images known about crucifixion came after emperator Constantine.


----------



## sinclair001

"Behold the man".... impressed me very much. Is touching in the context of ignorance of the human side of nature represented by Pilate. A doubting and squinted judge, is judging a situation he cannot evaluate enough. And it is simultaneously describing how a superior being is accepting the judgment and choice of one of the creatures of his kingdom.


----------



## Forero

tvdxer said:


> "the crux of the matter" - A setback, thorn, etc.



"The crux of the matter" = what is crucial to the matter, the heart of the matter.



sinclair001 said:


> ¿do you know a sort of oath stating ¿ you can cross my heart ? I remember I hear this on a movie long time ago.



The oath you are referring to is probably "(I) cross my heart and hope to die (if what I am saying is not the gospel truth)."  The truth is that He who died on the cross as well as the gospel that tells the story both forbid swearing (taking oaths).

A related practice is to make a promise with some part of the body forming a cross, usually the middle and index fingers of one hand, to exempt the person from actually having to keep the promise or to excuse a person who is bearing false witness.

At least in the movie version of the Dracula myth/legend, a cross can act as a weapon against the undead.  Even the swastika is a form of cross.

During the crusades (cross-ades), unruly armies of "Christians" would march into countries carrying a cross and killing any who got in their way.

The Ku Klux Klan was another bunch of out-of-control hate-mongers who made a practice of burning a cross in someone's yard to evoke fear for one's life.

These are examples of the dark side of the symbolism of the cross and are clearly not divinely inspired.


----------



## alexacohen

chaya said:


> Dear Alexa,
> I too found it shocking when for the first time I travelled around catholic countries, where at every turn, even high up in the mountains or in the countryside on lonely roads there were horrific effigies of a man covered in blood, hanging from a cross. This used to give me nightmares! As Jesus was known to be a a Semite, it is also puzzling to see him depicted as a blond with European features.


 
I didn't realize He was depicted as a blond with European features. I usually skip images of tortured people.


----------



## Coffee Marin

Indeed,to me, it is unconceivable for a man -*just one*- to be the saviour by having been crucified and tortured, since all over the earth existence there have been and will be many "crucified" who are willing to deliver their lives for human welfare.


----------



## Fernando

alexacohen said:


> I didn't realize He was depicted as a blond with European features. I usually skip images of tortured people.



As a matter of fact, I do not remember not one image with blond hair (except, obviously, those made with white marble).

At least in Spanish art, he is EVER depicted as brown-haired and big-noised (the typical sign of Jewish ancestry). The physical difference among a Mediterranean Spaniard and a "Jew" are minimal.


----------



## Fernando

Coffee Marin said:


> Indeed,to me, it is unconceivable for a man -*just one*- to be the saviour by having been crucified and tortured, since all over the earth existence there have been and will be many "crucified" who are willing to deliver their lives for human welfare.



He is not THE Saviour for having been crucified, he is THE Saviour because he is the God's Son and he was crucified.

There have been many men (many martyrs, to begin with) who have been tortured on behalf of mankind. Certainly they are images of Christ and, at least in a metaphorical way, are the people who redeems us, the people who have not the guts to follow the same path.


----------



## alexacohen

Fernando said:


> As a matter of fact, I do not remember not one image with blond hair (except, obviously, those made with white marble).
> 
> At least in Spanish art, he is EVER depicted as brown-haired and big-noised (the typical sign of Jewish ancestry). The physical difference among a Mediterranean Spaniard and a "Jew" are minimal.


 
I my case, none, Fernando, as I am both. 
I'm still not at ease with this discussion. It doesn't matter what I write, there is always a potential misunderstanding lurking and someone's feelings may be hurt.
I did not want to show disrespect for your God. It's simply that I can't stand the sight of a tortured man, so I try not to look at the crucifixion whenever I go into a cathedral or church. I try not to look at the images of tortured saints either.
If I have hurt you, I'm sorry. It was not my intention.


----------



## Fernando

Of course you have not hurt me. It is possible I am used to see the images of saints and Christ's, but I do not "see" the blood. I see the men who suffer on behalf of others. The Red Cross have a cross in his symbol and everybody watches the cross as a symbol of relief and help, not of torture and blood.

Some particular pictures, such as Ribera's or Valdez Leal's, are very crude, and I understand it could be disgusting to some people.

On my part, I apologize if I am speaking about some particular signs of a "race", such as the big noise. I was specifically addressing the comment of Chaya about Christ being depicting as a non-Jew, which I disagree with.

I am aware that there are blond, browned, curly, black and yellow Jews and that the big nose topic can be considered offensive.


----------



## alexacohen

Fernando said:


> Some particular pictures, such as Ribera's or Valdez Leal's, are very crude, and I understand it could be disgusting to some people.
> 
> On my part, I apologize if I am speaking about some particular signs of a "race", such as the big noise. I was specifically addressing the comment of Chaya about Christ being depicting as a non-Jew, which I disagree with.
> 
> I am aware that there are blond, browned, curly, black and yellow Jews and that the big nose topic can be considered offensive.


 
I'm not offended, Fernando. But I really have a Jewish nose - whatever that may be -


----------



## sinclair001

Una imagen aclaradora al respecto 





En 
http://images.google.com.co/imgres?...anta+sindone&gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=es&newwindow=1

Hay que tener en cuenta según describe la historia, que Jesús recibió muchos golpes en la cara, que fueron frutos de las caídas cuando fue arrastrado por el patíbulo.


----------



## alexacohen

Fernando said:


> The Red Cross have a cross in his symbol and everybody watches the cross as a symbol of relief and help, not of torture and blood.


 
The symbol of the Red Cross is the Swiss flag with the colours inverted, isn't it?


----------



## Fernando

It is. But the Swiss (and Scandinavian) flags are based in Christian cross.


----------



## Fernando

Coffee Marin said:


> Who's going to save people before Jesus?



Coffee, there are many books about the salvation of people living before Jesus, with several opinions. The debate will be very interesting but, given that:

- I am far from an expert in Theology.
- It is totally off-topic.

I invite you to open a new thread (in this forum or, maybe, in a Teology one).


----------



## sinclair001

The cross is the most universal between the symbolic signs and is no limited only to the christian settings.
It symbolizes the intersection of the up and down axis with the left and right axis, further being the union of many dual systems.
In some cultures of the ancient mexicans (in the Codex Fejervary Mayer) the cross is the symbol of the cosmos; and the foliated cross of mayan city of Palenque represents a cosmic tree.
The vertical axis yields cenit and nadir has symbologic relationships with the so called axis of the world. And the horizontal line divides squares in equal parts. This was for instance the order of the ideal roman city, divided by decumanus and cardus.

And the torture instrument is by resurrection, transformed in the symbol of lasting, eternal life.


----------



## John Carter

sinclair001 said:


> John C: are you somehow refering to the oxymoronic concept "man who create God"?


 
Sinclair,
Not in the slightest.
It took me a few minutes to winkle out the oxymoron reference and the only way I can reconcile it is to consider it as a religious oxymoron because God creates man looks no less self confirmatory than does man creates God.
 
My problem with the concept of an immortal  trinity deity sending only one third of itself to temporarily take human form so that the humaniform third could die and then be ressurrected by the other two thirds of its immortal self is very much rendolant of Br'er Rabbit's dealings with Br'er Fox who killed Br'er Rabbit by crucifying him on a blackberry bush only to have Br'er Rabbit pop out the other side unscathed.
 
ZJC


----------



## elizabeth_b

alexacohen said:


> Hello Fernando:
> I don't feel at ease with this topic at all; it's too dangerous and potentially hurtful.
> John Carter's explanation makes sense to me: a cross is an easy to make symbol.
> 
> Just to clarify a little.  We don't chose the croos because it was easier to draw or represent than any other thing.  Not just in religion but in any other branch or knowledge symbols are used and chosen for their meaning.
> 
> For me, a cross is a symbol of torture and death. A terrible way of dying. It doesn't matter if it is God's suffering or a man's suffering. It's still suffering.
> I think I will never be able to understand it.
> The things you mention can't be equivalents. It is as if the French people carried guillotines hanging from their necks.
> 
> Yes, we do understand that because you are not familiar with the religion you cannot understand the fact.  We need to point out that the Cross is a symbol of life.  Why?  Because Jesus died for us, he clear out our sins with this act, he forgive us after all what he sufferd in his Pasion and the most important thing is that he ressurect.  That's one if not the most important foundation of the Catholic faith.  By ressurecting he defeated death.  So, back to the main point, the cross symbolize for us the resurrection, the ethernal life conquered by Christ and that's a promise for us.
> Now, of course we must admit that the misunderstanding of the concept and also the manipulation of this causes what we can call "a culture based on the guilty".
> 
> I hope this can be of some help to clarify the point


----------



## elizabeth_b

John Carter said:


> I would have been more impressed if all three parts of the Trinity copped the chop at the same time but to just send the Son while the Father and the Holy Ghost maintained vigil is a cheap trick by any standards.
> 
> ZJC


 
The Trinity Mystery points out that The Holy Ghost, The Father and the Son are One Person.  So, the three of them suffered the same in the Passion.  
Just don't ask me to explain the Trinity Mystery!!! If Saint Augustin didn't find out this it's very probable that I won't find it out at this very moment.


----------



## Outsider

Yes, the whole point of the dogma of the Trinity is that God is one and indivisible. Christianity is not polytheistic.

Many centuries ago, there were sects which also felt uncomfortable with this double nature: how could a God be humiliated and die? How could a man be divine? In Europe, those branches of Christianity were eventually defeated and condemned as heresies.

Outside Europe, it seems that different views about the divinity of Jesus persisted, some of which, as I have just recently noticed, were inherited by Islam!



			
				alexacohen said:
			
		

> I didn't realize He was depicted as a blond with European features.


Didn't you see _The Last Temptation of Christ_?


----------



## elizabeth_b

John Carter said:


> Sinclair,
> My problem with the concept of an immortal trinity deity sending only one third of itself to temporarily take human form so that the humaniform third could die and then be ressurrected by the other two thirds of its immortal self is very much rendolant of Br'er Rabbit's dealings with Br'er Fox who killed Br'er Rabbit by crucifying him on a blackberry bush only to have Br'er Rabbit pop out the other side unscathed.
> 
> ZJC


 
I just want to point out that the main goal of Jesus coming in a human form wasn't for Him to be able to die.  The main goal was to stablish a nearer relationship with humanity.  And well, again, he wasn't ressurrected by the other two parts, he ressurected by his own merits, but as the Three are one God, well we can say the Three worked together in the Ressurection.  
I hope I'm helping a little by trying to explain some of this issues.  Really this is my best intention.


----------



## alexacohen

Outsider said:


> Yes, the whole point of the dogma of the Trinity is that God is one and indivisible. Christianity is not polytheistic.
> Didn't you see _The Last Temptation of Christ_?


 
No, sorry, I didn't.
Monty Phyton's "The life of Brian" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" in a London theater a long time ago. The first one was downright funny and the second one had some very beautiful songs. 
I'm getting more lost by the minute.
I really don't understand, I just wanted to know why a cross, but all this is too confusing. I don't understand if God is indivisible for Christians how can He be divided into three.  
It is too strange a concept.
Thank you all for trying to explain.


----------



## cherine

*I'm afraid I have to close this thread.*

*Reason: It doesn't discuss one topic but many. I can't find how many posts answer the thread's topic, because most of the posts are discussing Christianity, the nature of Jesus....*


*Thank you all for an interested -though off-topic (or multi-topic)- discussion.*


----------

