Who or what died on the cross?

[Gem]

Firstly, let me say that no-one knows who or what died on the cross. The best we can do is pretend knowledge by repeating what we have been told. I want to resist such pretense and reiteration and examine how the imagery of the crucifixion generates a narrative about death as the means of eternal life.



It is a common reference in Christianinty to be 'born again', but I'm more interested in who or what dies to enable this peculiarity of rebirth. Being "born again' is obviously in reference to Christ dying on the cross only to rise again in eternal life.



This reminds my of Freud's idea of the death drive. It is not a drive for death as the end of life. On the contrary, the death drive is the drive for life everlasting. This is represented monstrously by vampires and zombies, other horrific form of the un-dead - and Satan no less - but the death drive is also represented by He who died on the cross only to rise again into life eternal. Hence the death drive is a dynamic tension between that most feared and that most wanted, and the life and death dilemma is the yearning for them both as a singular, eternal state of being.



This is profoundly symbolised in the death and re-arising of Christ. The philosopher Zizek theorised that in the moment He was forsaken on the cross he was furthest from God - most filled with doubt, most distrusting, abandoned by Him to suffer a horrible death. But since Jesus is the manifestation of God Himself, it was in this moment when God forsook Himself that He became closest to Himself, and it is precisely the death of God Himself that enables rising in everlasting life for that Man manifest in His image.


Similarly, before a person is re-born in Christ he is far from God, and it is this furthest distance that make possible his rebirth, it is only because one is forsaken and abandoned to death that he may be born again to everlasting life.


This is also lllustrated in the stories of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. The one who strays furthest is the shepherd's, or the Father's, most treasured. The stories re-affirm the notion that it is being furthest away that makes one closest. Christ on the cross is the most extreme example where God forsook Himself and simultaneusly lost faith in Himself to perform the ultimate act of love. By abandoning Himself to agonising faithlessness and death, He gifted Himself life everlasting as He who he manifested in His Image. Namely the image of Man, the Son, He who died on the cross.



There are more stories in the Bible that confirm this notion. For example, Christ (who is God) took with Him to heaven not a clean living pious worshipping man, but a dirty-rotton thief. The story of the phariseas in the temple conversely illustrated that those who are closest to God, the most pious worshippers among us, are in fact those who are furthest away.


Consider that before you contribute here as a good Christian. To truly be Christlike in his defining moment one much be most akin with Satan, and it is through this descent into hell that one rises to eternal life in heaven

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

Firstly, let me say that no-one knows who or what died on the cross. The best we can do is pretend knowledge by repeating what we have been told. I want to resist such pretense and reiteration and examine how the imagery of the crucifixion generates a narrative about death as the means of eternal life.

Writing "what died on the cross" is to some Christians a 'shocking' expression liken to writing on a Buddhist Forum "what is an Ashoka the Great"?

Originally Posted by GEM

It is a common reference in Christianinty to be 'born again', but I'm more interested in who or what dies to enable this peculiarity of rebirth. Being "born again' is obviously in reference to Christ dying on the cross only to rise again in eternal life.

Being 'born again' in Christianity has nothing to do with 'Christ dying on the cross only to rise again in eternal life'.

Originally Posted by GEM

This reminds my of Freud's idea of the death drive. It is not a drive for death as the end of life. On the contrary, the death drive is the drive for life everlasting. This is represented monstrously by vampires and zombies, other horrific form of the un-dead - and Satan no less - but the death drive is also represented by He who died on the cross only to rise again into life eternal. Hence the death drive is a dynamic tension between that most feared and that most wanted, and the life and death dilemma is the yearning for them both as a singular, eternal state of being.

As for 'This is represented monstrously by vampires and zombies, other horrific form of the un-dead - and Satan no less' is a severe 'twist' on the word we call 'Satan' which in Hebrew is two separate words/expressions that generally get mistranslated.

Originally Posted by GEM

This is profoundly symbolised in the death and re-arising of Christ. The philosopher Zizek theorised that in the moment He was forsaken on the cross he was furthest from God - most filled with doubt, most distrusting, abandoned by Him to suffer a horrible death. But since Jesus is the manifestation of God Himself, it was in this moment when God forsook Himself that He became closest to Himself, and it is precisely the death of God Himself that enables rising in everlasting life for that Man manifest in His image.

In Christianity, some believe Jesus was God and some believe he was the son of God and was in his own right a god. Jesus' death is an important facet of Christianity.

Originally Posted by GEM

Similarly, before a person is re-born in Christ he is far from God, and it is this furthest distance that make possible his rebirth, it is only because one is forsaken and abandoned to death that he may be born again to everlasting life.

This 'definition' of being 'reborn again' is different then the one presented in your fifth sentence.

Originally Posted by GEM

This is also lllustrated in the stories of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. The one who strays furthest is the shepherd's, or the Father's, most treasured. The stories re-affirm the notion that it is being furthest away that makes one closest. Christ on the cross is the most extreme example where God forsook Himself and simultaneusly lost faith in Himself to perform the ultimate act of love. By abandoning Himself to agonising faithlessness and death, He gifted Himself life everlasting as He who he manifested in His Image. Namely the image of Man, the Son, He who died on the cross.

The sentence 'He gifted Himself life everlasting as He who he manifested in His Image' is an over reach of what is written.

Originally Posted by GEM

There are more stories in the Bible that confirm this notion. For example, Christ (who is God) took with Him to heaven not a clean living pious worshipping man, but a dirty-rotton thief. The story of the phariseas in the temple conversely illustrated that those who are closest to God, the most pious worshippers among us, are in fact those who are furthest away.

The Bible never mentions Jesus taking 'with Him to heaven not a clean living pious worshipping man, but a dirty-rotton thief'. Jesus mentioned Paradise not Heaven. Besides, which 'He' are you talking about. There were two other men executed along with Jesus.

Originally Posted by GEM

Consider that before you contribute here as a good Christian. To truly be Christlike in his defining moment one much be most akin with Satan, and it is through this descent into hell that one rises to eternal life in heaven

The sentence 'Consider that before you contribute here as a good Christian' can be construed by some Christians to be inflammatory in nature. As previously mentioned, I alluded to your misuse of the word Satan and now the misuse use of the word hell.

Originally Posted by Gem

Firstly, let me say that no-one knows who or what died on the cross. The best we can do is pretend knowledge by repeating what we have been told. I want to resist such pretense and reiteration and examine how the imagery of the crucifixion generates a narrative about death as the means of eternal life.



It is a common reference in Christianinty to be 'born again', but I'm more interested in who or what dies to enable this peculiarity of rebirth. Being "born again' is obviously in reference to Christ dying on the cross only to rise again in eternal life.



This reminds my of Freud's idea of the death drive. It is not a drive for death as the end of life. On the contrary, the death drive is the drive for life everlasting. This is represented monstrously by vampires and zombies, other horrific form of the un-dead - and Satan no less - but the death drive is also represented by He who died on the cross only to rise again into life eternal. Hence the death drive is a dynamic tension between that most feared and that most wanted, and the life and death dilemma is the yearning for them both as a singular, eternal state of being.



This is profoundly symbolised in the death and re-arising of Christ. The philosopher Zizek theorised that in the moment He was forsaken on the cross he was furthest from God - most filled with doubt, most distrusting, abandoned by Him to suffer a horrible death. But since Jesus is the manifestation of God Himself, it was in this moment when God forsook Himself that He became closest to Himself, and it is precisely the death of God Himself that enables rising in everlasting life for that Man manifest in His image.


Similarly, before a person is re-born in Christ he is far from God, and it is this furthest distance that make possible his rebirth, it is only because one is forsaken and abandoned to death that he may be born again to everlasting life.


This is also lllustrated in the stories of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. The one who strays furthest is the shepherd's, or the Father's, most treasured. The stories re-affirm the notion that it is being furthest away that makes one closest. Christ on the cross is the most extreme example where God forsook Himself and simultaneusly lost faith in Himself to perform the ultimate act of love. By abandoning Himself to agonising faithlessness and death, He gifted Himself life everlasting as He who he manifested in His Image. Namely the image of Man, the Son, He who died on the cross.



There are more stories in the Bible that confirm this notion. For example, Christ (who is God) took with Him to heaven not a clean living pious worshipping man, but a dirty-rotton thief. The story of the phariseas in the temple conversely illustrated that those who are closest to God, the most pious worshippers among us, are in fact those who are furthest away.


Consider that before you contribute here as a good Christian. To truly be Christlike in his defining moment one much be most akin with Satan, and it is through this descent into hell that one rises to eternal life in heaven

All very interesting...I will reply given time

The entire scenario is invalid for many reasons to name a few theres the fact that the sacrifice was not done on the holy altar (the bible portrays God as being extremely poticuler on how he wants things killed for him) and there also the fact that the human is not kosher so being a human makes him unqualified as a sacrifice and of course theres the obvious fact that the sacrifice has to remain dead in order for the sacrifice to count if not then anyone with sleep apnea has there sins washed away about 3x a night.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Writing "what died on the cross" is to some Christians a 'shocking' expression liken to writing on a Buddhist Forum "what is an Ashoka the Great"?

Being 'born again' in Christianity has nothing to do with 'Christ dying on the cross only to rise again in eternal life'.

A tenet in Christianity is "Eternal life" connoted in a heavenly light, and this is precisely what the one gains when they are 'born again'.

As for 'This is represented monstrously by vampires and zombies, other horrific form of the un-dead - and Satan no less' is a severe 'twist' on the word we call 'Satan' which in Hebrew is two separate words/expressions that generally get mistranslated.

In this case accurate definitions of 'satan' are an irrelevant technicality because the horrific characters I mentioned are merely used illustrate the fearsome and the hellish aspect of eternal life.

In Christianity, some believe Jesus was God and some believe he was the son of God and was in his own right a god. Jesus' death is an important facet of Christianity.

Absolutely.

This 'definition' of being 'reborn again' is different then the one presented in your fifth sentence.

Meaning shifts with the context.

The sentence 'He gifted Himself life everlasting as He who he manifested in His Image' is an over reach of what is written.



The Bible never mentions Jesus taking 'with Him to heaven not a clean living pious worshipping man, but a dirty-rotton thief'. Jesus mentioned Paradise not Heaven. Besides, which 'He' are you talking about. There were two other men executed along with Jesus.

Jesus took the thief on the cross next to him.

The sentence 'Consider that before you contribute here as a good Christian' can be construed by some Christians to be inflammatory in nature. As previously mentioned, I alluded to your misuse of the word Satan and now the misuse use of the word hell.

This was contextualised with the story of the pharasies who were pious and frequented the temple. With vanity and pride saw themselves as good and holy, but the eyes of God see past the apparent to the vain deceit of making false impressions.


Contrarily, the thief on the cross beside Jesus made no pretenses. He hurt people and dispossessed them of their property (and probably worse), but the thief had no delusions about being a good or pious man and Christ favoured him, despite his misdoings and shortcomings, on that fateful day when He died for Man's sins.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by MAYA EL

The entire scenario is invalid for many reasons to name a few theres the fact that the sacrifice was not done on the holy altar (the bible portrays God as being extremely poticuler on how he wants things killed for him) and there also the fact that the human is not kosher so being a human makes him unqualified as a sacrifice and of course theres the obvious fact that the sacrifice has to remain dead in order for the sacrifice to count if not then anyone with sleep apnea has there sins washed away about 3x a night.

There a central issue with your narrative I wish to point out. Sacrifice is not an act of killing in the sense of ending the life; it is an act of offering up that life to God, and the sacrificial ritual is thus the gift of immortality through the destruction of the mortal coil.


Christ's sacrificial death was far more interesting. He was was not sacrificed to God by men as an offering. He was crucified as punishment. However, here is where it gets very interesting it was God who performed the sacrifice - "Sacrificed his only son'. Rather than men making a human sacrifice to their God, God sacrificed Christ for men.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

Jesus took the thief on the cross next to him.

Which thief? There were 2.

Originally Posted by GEM

Contrarily, the thief on the cross beside Jesus made no pretenses. He hurt people and dispossessed them of their property (and probably worse), but the thief had no delusions about being a good or pious man and Christ favoured him, despite his misdoings and shortcomings, on that fateful day when He died for Man's sins.

The penitent thief got canonized. People celebrated his feast day last week on the 25th.

So I assume, you are talking about the other thief. YouPreviously claimed Jesus said he would go to Heaven but the scriptures do not say that. Jesus claimed he will see him in Paradise. Even though Jesus will see him in Paradise (as a result of a resurrection) does not mean the thief will get everlasting life.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Which thief? There were 2.

What difference does it make which one?

The penitent thief got canonized. People celebrated his feast day last week on the 25th.

So I assume, you are talking about the other thief.

I'm talking about the one he told he's going to paradise.

You Previously claimed Jesus said he would go to Heaven but the scriptures do not say that. Jesus claimed he will see him in Paradise. Even though Jesus will see him in Paradise (as a result of a resurrection) does not mean the thief will get everlasting life.

Paradise, heaven. Either or is close enough.

[Morpheus]

What was it about the one thief, that caused the Lord to promise him Paradise?

That's where the emphasis should be laid.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

What was it about the one thief, that caused the Lord to promise him Paradise?

That's where the emphasis should be laid.

He repented.... But was it genuine