An Accursed Death?

[PRmerger]

Greetings PRmerger. It seems like you misunderstood me. I was not insulting the catholic christians. What i meant was that the catholic christians take authority over rational reason which is true.

Absolutely NOT.

There is no need to create a dichotomy between what the magisterium professes and what rational reason declares.

There is NOTHING which the Church has taught which defies rational reason.

 

[po18guy]

It is according to the Author of galatians which you belive to be Paul.

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole

Haydock commentary
Christ hath redeemed us from these curses; but to do this, hath made himself a curse for our sake, by taking upon himself the similitude of a sinner, and by dying upon the cross, as if he had been guilty of the greatest sins, having only charged himself with our sins, inasmuch as it is written:

It is a well known christian doctrine that Christ was cursed for Your “sins”

This passage does open a door for Jews to slander the son of Mary.

I do not see how creating imprefect beings, hell and evil, than flooding the entire Earth because the imperfect beings were imperfect and that still did not help. Instead he decides to come Down and commit suicide so that those who belive in him will not enter hell which he created in the first Place.

I do not Call that love, just a major headache.

First of all, the very premise of this thread is false, as it quotes Jewish opinion in a forum about sacred scripture, then twists and distorts sacred scripture to fit this agenda. No Muslim, Hindu, Rastafarian or even another Christian has the authority to privately interpret any scripture. Period. The Christian Church is the only authentic interpreter of the scriptures, which her own members wrote.

Read 2 Peter 3:15-17. Notice that, just as Peter prophesied, Paul’s words are being twisted in this thread. As to Peter, read also this:

1 Peter 2:24
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,[a] that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

As it is with His virgin birth, Christ is alo the fulfillment of all true prophecy.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.

And, lest we forget:

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Christ took the curse of all humanity upon Himself for the sake of redeeming all humanity. A God who was nothing more than vengeance or justice would have destroyed the world. But God has revealed His infinite love through the sacrifice of His own Son for the sake of the world.

According to the will of God, Jesus’ blood redeemed YOU.

 

[Aristocles_X]

Absolutely NOT.

There is no need to create a dichotomy between what the magisterium professes and what rational reason declares.

There is NOTHING which the Church has taught which defies rational reason.

See this is Your subjective biased opinion. However when rational reason contradicts what the Church teaches authority wins over rational reason.

Once you take off the Catholic glasses and take on more objective glasses you will understand what i mean.

 

[PRmerger]

Greetings PRmerger. Is the Author of Galatians who you belive to be Paul not a magisterium?

Also, just a minor point of correction. It’s not a big deal, but I thought it would help you in future discourse with Catholics: We do not speak of someone being “a magisterium”.

Thus, we wouldn’t say, “Is Pope Francis not a magisterium”?

We would say, “Is Pope Francis not part of the magisterium?”

 

[PRmerger]

See this is Your subjective biased opinion.

It is no more subjective and biased than your opinions are, Aristocles.

However when rational reason contradicts what the Church teaches authority wins over rational reason.

Perhaps you could give an example of Church teaching which contradicts reason.

 

[po18guy]

Hi,

You mean to say Paul misunderstood.

Anyhow, Jesus was praying earnestly for the cup of death to be removed [see my post #20], so it was not ‘willing’ by any means.

Peace.

No! It is indeed you who misunderstand. Muslims do not believe that Christ had two natures: fully divine and fully human. From this comes much misunderstanding. Man cannot redeem mankind in the eyes of God, unless that Man was conceived by God’s Holy Spirit and also has a divine nature that is God.

That fact that Peter wrote, almost 2,000 years ago, that many twist and distort the writings of Paul greatly harms your credibility, since you seem to be fulfilling Peter’s words here.

What is your authority to interpret sacred Christian scripture?

 

[Dialogues]

Hi,

… What is your authority to interpret sacred Christian scripture?

I don’t claim to be an authority on it. The issue raised is the interpretation of [Deut 21:23] by Jews, for whom it is also scripture, and the apparent acceptance of Jewish interpretation by Christians, including Paul, and most probably because of Paul, who is considered to be an authority for Christians, but not for Jews, or for Muslims for that matter. The objection is also mentioned by early Christian apologist Justin Martyr in his Dialogues with Trypho, so it is certainly not a later Jewish objection.

You allege I misunderstand Paul, in which case it is up to you to explain why Paul referred to [Deut 21:23], clearly accepting it’s application on Jesus’s alleged death on the cross. So both Jews and Christians allege that it was an accursed death on the cross, whilst Muslims say that Jesus the Messiah was blessed, and did not die an accursed death on the cross, the word ‘curse’ being considered to be an insult to Jesus. Instead, it is believed he was drawn closer to God, not far removed from His presence, which the word ‘curse’ would imply.

Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi,

I don’t claim to be an authority on it. The issue raised is the interpretation of [Deut 21:23] by Jews, for whom it is also scripture, and the apparent acceptance of Jewish interpretation by Christians, including Paul, and most probably because of Paul, who is considered to be an authority for Christians, but not for Jews, or for Muslims for that matter. The objection is also mentioned by early Christian apologist Justin Martyr in his Dialogues with Trypho, so it is certainly not a later Jewish objection.

You allege I misunderstand Paul, in which case it is up to you to explain why Paul referred to [Deut 21:23], clearly accepting it’s application on Jesus’s alleged death on the cross. So both Jews and Christians allege that it was an accursed death on the cross, whilst Muslims say that Jesus the Messiah was blessed, and did not die an accursed death on the cross, the word ‘curse’ being considered to be an insult to Jesus. Instead, it is believed he was drawn closer to God, not far removed from His presence, which the word ‘curse’ would imply.

Peace.

What “accursed” means is that crucifixion is an ignoble and horrid way to die.

Nothing more…and certainly nothing less.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Just going to preach in hell does not explain how Jesus took on the punishment for the sins of mankind. Is being on a cross for a few hours enough to bear all sins? The entire doctrine of vicarious atonement doesn’t add up, more so if he wasn’t even punished in hell in the first place.

Moreover, ‘accursed’ means ‘distant from God, close to the devil, deprived of divine mercy, with the soul blackened by sin’. . .

:twocents:
Sin and suffering are not cumulative - it all happens individually.
Christ was tempted in the desert, and He thereby, as a man, fully experienced what that is like for us.
On the cross, He experienced every form of suffering that man experiences - there is no more.
Through His resurrection He conquered death and evil.
This and more seem all perfectly clear to me, not that this is the standard for what qualifies as Truth, which is to be found in Him.
BTW: Jesus could no more sin than a candle can give off darkness.
May your journey to God be blessed.

 

[po18guy]

Hi,

I don’t claim to be an authority on it. The issue raised is the interpretation of [Deut 21:23] by Jews, for whom it is also scripture, and the apparent acceptance of Jewish interpretation by Christians, including Paul, and most probably because of Paul, who is considered to be an authority for Christians, but not for Jews, or for Muslims for that matter. The objection is also mentioned by early Christian apologist Justin Martyr in his Dialogues with Trypho, so it is certainly not a later Jewish objection.

You allege I misunderstand Paul, in which case it is up to you to explain why Paul referred to [Deut 21:23], clearly accepting it’s application on Jesus’s alleged death on the cross. So both Jews and Christians allege that it was an accursed death on the cross, whilst Muslims say that Jesus the Messiah was blessed, and did not die an accursed death on the cross, the word ‘curse’ being considered to be an insult to Jesus. Instead, it is believed he was drawn closer to God, not far removed from His presence, which the word ‘curse’ would imply.

Peace.

Were there Roman crucifixions in Jerusalem at the time that Deuteronomy was written?

 

[Dialogues]

Hi,

What “accursed” means is that crucifixion is an ignoble and horrid way to die.

Nothing more…and certainly nothing less.

[Deut 21:22] “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed BY GOD; you shall not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.

So the issue is not of it just being a horrid way to die, but that the person is said to be ‘accursed by God’. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:

*“God’s providence ordered it so that to fulfil the prophecy of the curse and other prophecies, Jesus should be crucified, and so hang on the tree, though that death was not a Jewish mode of execution. The Jews accordingly, in contempt, call Him Tolvi, “the hanged one,” and Christians, “worshippers of the hanged one”; and make it their great objection that He died the accursed death [Trypho, in Justin Martyr, p. 249] (1Pe 2:24). Hung between heaven and earth as though unworthy of either!” *

You could argue against the Jewish position, but those who regard Paul as an authority are stuck with it.

Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi,

[Deut 21:22] “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed BY GOD; you shall not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance.

So the issue is not of it just being a horrid way to die, but that the person is said to be ‘accursed by God’.

Yes. And that is why we don’t take the OT without the lens of the NT shedding light on its meaning.

By itself, the OT is imperfect and provisional.

You could argue against the Jewish position, but those who regard Paul as an authority are stuck with it.

Peace.

Are stuck with what? That Jesus’ death atoned for our sins?

 

[Dialogues]

Are stuck with what? That Jesus’ death atoned for our sins?

That Jesus became accursed.

I don’t consider it correct that he actually died in the first place. He was mistaken for dead. His vital signs were not checked. No doctor certified him dead. And if anyone is discovered to be alive after being presumed dead, the only conclusion is that he never actually died. There are many such cases of people who come to life again, and no one believes they were resurrected. They had a near death experience.

What happened in the case of Jesus is that he bowed his head immediately after finishing a drink that was given to him on the cross, and this was mistaken for death, whereas he only fainted. Pilate was in favour of releasing him, not just because of his wife’s dream, but also because he thought him innocent. So he had him placed on the cross on Friday afternoon, knowing full well that in a few hours he would have to be taken down from the cross.

Jesus was given a drink on the cross immediately after finishing which he bowed his head and was mistaken for dead, whereas he had only fainted:

• John 19:28 After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfil the scripture), “I thirst.” 29 A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. *

Jesus afterwards even showed his fleshly wounds to his disciples to convince them he was the same person with the same physical body, and ate fish infront of them, as normal humans would do, proving to them he was no spirit.

So, he didn’t die on the cross, hence he could not be said to be accursed anyway.

Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

That Jesus became accursed.

He did die an accursed death. No one disputes that, Dialogues.

St. Paul does not state that Jesus was cursed by God.

I don’t consider it correct that he actually died in the first place. He was mistaken for dead.

So why would the Apostles and disciples lie about his death and resurrection?

 

[Dialogues]

Hi,

I just did a bit of research, and it appears that you have been misinformed.

It was absolutely “the Jewish burial practice” to use aloes and myrrhs:

Okay, I will research this matter further. I had looked at a few Jewish sites previously.

Peace.

This is a non-sequitur. Meeting disciples behind closed doors has nothing to do with someone being unable to die on a cross.

Not really. The point is he was trying to avoid recapture. He was mistaken for a gardener by Mary only because he was disguised as one. He was not recognised on the road to Emmaus for the same reason.

Jesus was buried. That much is fact.

Being placed in a spacious sepulchre is not the same as being buried 6 feet under the ground.

And if his wounds were treated merely as “healing”, can you tell us why the they left him alone in a tomb, rather than tending to him?

They probably left him after applying the ointments to his wounds lest the Jews become suspicious. He was unconscious at the time anyway.

Peace.

He did die an accursed death. No one disputes that, Dialogues. St. Paul does not state that Jesus was cursed by God.

That he was referring to [Deut 21:23] cannot be denied.

So why would the Apostles and disciples lie about his death and resurrection?

It appears that they were forced to use metaphorical language to prevent Jesus being captured again, and they all be arrested for being accomplices in preventing a sentence from being carried out.

Sleep (and unconsciousness) is a form of death. Jesus had a near death experience, and it was as if he had come back from the dead.

Peace.

 

[Aloysium]

Dialogues:

Not really. The point is he was trying to avoid recapture. He was mistaken for a gardener by Mary only because he was disguised as one. He was not recognised on the road to Emmaus for the same reason.
Being placed in a spacious sepulchre is not the same as being buried 6 feet under the ground.
They probably left him after applying the ointments to his wounds lest the Jews become suspicious. He was unconscious at the time anyway.
Peace.

I see you have it all figured out. It would seem any further discussion would be futile. I’m not sure why you are here, since there is no one whom you will convince. It probably has to do with making your own view rock solid and impervious to any intellectual threat. I am hoping you will not be successful and that eventually the cognitive prison that entraps your soul will melt in the face of Truth. Perhaps He has guided you here to open your heart; if this is not happening, go to where you feel closer to Him. There is no point arguing about things you know nothing about. Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

Dialogues:

Not really. The point is he was trying to avoid recapture. He was mistaken for a gardener by Mary only because he was disguised as one. He was not recognised on the road to Emmaus for the same reason.

So are you saying that Jesus lied, and the rest of his apostles lied as well, about the fact that he died and rose again on the 3rd day?

Dialogues:

Being placed in a spacious sepulchre is not the same as being buried 6 feet under the ground.

Can you tell us what you believe the purpose this sepulchre was?

Dialogues:

That he was referring to [Deut 21:23] cannot be denied.

Indeed.

No one has posited that he wasn’t referring to Deuteronomy 21:23.

What is being maintained is that St. Paul gives us new insight into Deuteronomy 21:23 and that Jesus’ death was an ignoble and horrific way to die…and this was done out of love for you and me.

Again, this comes from understanding the Word of God in its entirety, not just from reading a book, no matter how holy the book is.

Dialogues:

It appears that they were forced to use metaphorical language to prevent Jesus being captured again, and they all be arrested for being accomplices in preventing a sentence from being carried out.

Sleep (and unconsciousness) is a form of death. Jesus had a near death experience, and it was as if he had come back from the dead.

Peace.

This is inconsistent with history, Dialogues.

All of the Apostles, save for John, were martyred proclaiming the death and resurrection of Christ.

No one died excruciating deaths for using “metaphorical language”. Rather, they died because they proclaimed He is Risen!

And everyone knew what they meant.

Do you really think that the Jews and Romans would have killed the apostles for using metaphorical language?

And that the Apostles would have withstood torture without saying, “Wait a minute! I didn’t really mean that Jesus rose again! I only meant he did this in a metaphorical way!”

I am hoping you will not be successful and that eventually the cognitive prison that entraps your soul will melt in the face of Truth. Perhaps He has guided you here to open your heart;

Yes. It is good for him to be here and read apologia for our faith. It is clearly something he has never heard before–answers to his objections.

if this is not happening, go to where you feel closer to Him. There is no point arguing about things you know nothing about. Peace.

I think that Dialogues is actually surprised by the fact that his objections have been refuted.

It is good for him to be here and to dialogue.

Perhaps, indeed, the Spirit of God will whisper to him and hearts and minds will be changed!

 

[po18guy]

I do not know if the OP’s point is anti-Semitic or anti-Christian, but he is twisting and distorting scripture like never before. Of course, if one desires to hold to a particular belief system, and that belief system does not comport with scripture, history, tradition or reason, what else can one do?

 

[Dialogues]

Hi,

I think that Dialogues is actually surprised by the fact that his objections have been refuted.

No comments

It is good for him to be here and to dialogue.

On that I agree.

Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

No comments .

There’s no reason for you to avoid dialogue, as long as you can do it charitably here.

Right now, it appears that you have offered an objection to the death and resurrection of Christ (he didn’t really die but was just hiding out), but haven’t really thought it out past that.

I am asking you to consider the implications of what you are saying: who lied about the death and resurrection of Christ?

And why would they do this?

And what did they get for doing this?

(Answer: torture and a horrifying death for proclaiming “He is Risen!”)

Think about the above and digest it. It makes no sense to say that Jesus didn’t really die, and that his apostles just made everything up.