You have only suggested crucifixion is painful for anyone. But Jesus was not anybody, and can't show, even from the texts, any indications of pain. As I've said, it's all assumed. It would be possible to show that with the right kind of painkillers, something normally painful can be neutralized. You're assuming Jesus had no other way to neutralize pain, having refused painkillers. That tells us he was either inviting pain, or had his own way to neutralize it. Are you saying you can't think of any other way he could neutralize pain...but you can think of a way for him to walk out of a tomb after three days dead, and appear and disappear into thin air at will?
you are attempting to reverse the logical burden of proof. you are stating even though he was whipped with metal balls on the end of a whip, he had nails drive through his wrist and feet, even though he had thorns and spear driven into him and he died on a cross which is known for its painfully cruelty Jesus suffered no pain. any logical person would think that the person arguing that Jesus suffered no pain would have the burden to show he had no pain.
Does the text have to say, 'He felt no pain' for there to be proof for you? Neither does it say 'he felt pain'. And you haven't answered my question: You can't think of any way he could neutralize the pain on his own (without painkillers)...but you can think of a way for him to walk out of a tomb after three days dead, and appear and disappear at will? Besides all that, pain and death are sins. It doesn't make any sense that Jesus would sin, to save sinners. Yes, you heard me right, pain is sin, down at the bottom of several layers of sin. No mind that knows itself to be truly innocent, can feel pain. The body is an extension of the mind. Mind over matter. If you pay no mind to guilt, you don't feel pain. Given this psychology, you would be implying that Jesus was indeed guilty of something. Faith is sin too. Jesus didn't believe he was innocent. He knew it. Big difference. Even Tony Robbins can walk on hot coals. How much more Jesus?
I enjoy reading your posts when I have the time to think and dwell upon them. = 1. Since I believe Jesus is also God of course Jesus could have numbed his pain. he could also have come down from the cross at any time. But, then his life and death may not have fulfilled the prophesies. Jesus himself told us that he was the fulfillment a few different times. for instance... He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” (the stones would have had to cry out was because prophesy was being fulfilled that day.) coldcasechristianity.com/2013/perhaps-the-greatest-old-testament-prophecy-of-all/ So while anything was possible I look at it this way. If I wish to create my own religion I may. But if I am going to use the bible for some of my beliefs then I might as well accurately represent what is in the bible when I discuss it. 2. Jesus was without sin. During the passover the angel of death passed over. All those inside (jew or non jew good person or sinner, who (as God instructed) put the blood of an unblemished the lamb on the door and ate it (in the shape of cross by the way) were saved as the angel of death passed over. Jesus is the unblemished lamb of God. If we have acted in accordance with one of God's instructions when we face judgment we to may have the blood of Jesus cover our sins so that we may have eternal life. 3. I can walk on hot coals... its matter over matter. particularly damp or wet matter creating a temporary barrier.
The problem with your whole approach is it is fundamentally blasphemous if it misrepresents Good. Like Jesus, I am trying to get you to see that the values of Good don't align, at all, with Jewish theology (religious speculation) or Jewish liturature, prophetic or mundane. For example, Jesus said, "If you knew the scriptures, you would see God does not desire sacrifice, but mercy instead". This means any sacrifice at all. The whole idea of sacrifice is blasphemous, especially the "sacrifice" of his "only" Son. This includes torture for any length of time, or death for any length of time. This means Jesus' "Father" is not the god of Jewish theology, and the scriptures Jesus speaks of are not the traditional Jewish literature. The idea that a son of Good be tortured and snuffed to allow sinners to reach Good's domain is not only not good, but ridiculous as well as blasphemous. Sin is not something apart from man, or avoidable as mankind. Man IS sin. Everything man does is sin, eating, breathing, birthing, growing, thinking, believing, working, and finally dying. None of these attributes and actions describe Good, reflect Good, or represent Good. Even the very idea of man, even just to conceive of man...is a sin. As such, man was "conceived in sin". How much more of a sin to actually give birth to the conception (make man)? It is blasphemous to attribute the apparent existence of man to Good.. So what could Jesus possibly die for, even if we were to assume Good wants sacrifice, and not mercy? What about man or man's world is worth saving? Finally, your own scripture says the "Lamb of God" was "slain, before the foundation of the world". So whatever happened with Jesus is not the actual destruction of the Truth. First, truth is destroyed (killed), then is the world, as man knows it, founded. As such, man, and man's world, is not founded upon the rock of truth. Not one thing about man or man's world is true. As such, man and man's world is sin. Jewish liturature, which supports man, man's world, and the god of man's world (the god of this world) is sin. To put it plainly, the truth is sacrificed to establish man and man's world. I'll call this the status quo. With his crucifixion, Jesus was teaching about the status quo. Other than teaching, and demonstrating painlessness in the face of pain, nothing actually happened. Something happens only when an otherwise wandering mind understands the teaching. In this scenario, the only way for Jesus to be sinless is for Jesus to not be a man...at all (not even a hybrid). Other than man, what else can anyone possibly be?
I believe you took a fairly simple statement way too far. God preferring mercy to sacrifice does not mean... "The whole idea of sacrifice is blasphemous, especially the "sacrifice" of his "only" Son. This includes torture for any length of time, or death for any length of time." === I am sure God does prefer we show mercy rather than sin and then and then rely on sacrifice. But that does not mean sacrifice is blasphemous. I don't really have any idea how you can get there. I see the mercy to sacrifice construct to be part of the understanding that in the old testament there was law. But obeying the law is not enough because not only should you not commit adultery but Jesus told us you should not even think about adultery. Hence the law is not enough to be in heaven with perfection. You need the fulfillment of the law. Which Jesus is .
Blasphemy is fundamentally an insult to the divine nature of reality. It does not hurt the divine, which does not change, and therefore, does not sacrifice anything. It does hurt the blasphemer who then experiences the frame of reference that the blasphemy describes. Basically, the blasphemer experiences hell, which is a re-make of reality according to insulting notions about the divine nature. Only in hell is sacrifice meaningful, as hell depends on the sacrifice of truth for it's apparent existence. Meanwhile, the divine nature of reality has not sacrificed anything at all. Why should it? Seriously. Why should that which is good lose anything? What is worth losing anything for? Is there some "good" that is better than Good itself? It really is insulting, not only of intelligence, but also of the divine nature, to suggest that sacrifice is valued in any way, shape or form. Death is a sacrifice of life. Why would Good do this? How could Good do this? Pain is a sacrifice of bliss. Why would Good do this? The reasons you are proposing for why Good would do this defy rationality, defy intelligence, and i dare say, insult the intelligence of the divine. I'm talking about what Good is willing to do, what Good is capable of doing. I'm saying sacrifice is not a matter of preference. It is absolutely prohibited, meaning, not even possible, for Good to sacrifice anything. Otherwise, Good would not be Good. I would remind you, Good has not sacrificed his only Son, as the story goes. He still has his Son, unharmed, unchanged, even according to Catholic lore. As such, nothing has been sacrificed. If Catholic lore has changed the nature of the Son such that he has become a hybrid (half man, half god, full man, full god) then yes, something has been sacrificed. But that is Catholic lore, and not the actual facts. Only in hell do demons make decisions about "mercy" versus sacrifice, themselves depending on the sacrifice of truth for their existence. Having gained it's 'existence' through sacrifice, sacrifice remains a major theme in the culture of hell. Good doesn't have preferences about what demons should do. Good relies on the truth, and demons prefer that the truth be destroyed, suppressed, or killed, if possible. And this is because, truth be told, demons don't exist. So why should Good have preferences about what something that does not exist should do? So i think you are adding your own interpretation to what Jesus is alleged to have said (we can never really know for sure based on the bible alone). Good is not sometimes merciful, sometimes sacrificial....depending on the situation. There are no such situational ethics facing Good. That is the description of Good in the image of demons. Only demons face situational ethics. Facing decisions is what demons do...what they believe is how they behave. Good does not change, does not change responses based on criteria that is not Good, nor is schizophrenic or cognitively dissonant like demons. Jesus was describing a Good that always chooses mercy if there is a choice. But there is no such choice facing the divine nature of Good. It sacrifices nothing, and never will. If Good did desire mercy, that is what would happen, all the time, always, forever. However, as i've said, it is not an issue Good faces. I'm not sure how you get more out of what your scriptures allege Jesus said, "God desires mercy". Where does it say desires mercy under some ethical situations, and sacrifice under other ethical situations? Let's not confuse Jewish legal theology with the laws of Good. If it is a true law of Good, it cannot be broken. Jewish legal codes can be broken. As such, they are not Good laws. It is a law that Good sacrifices nothing, ever, for any reason. Under this law, nothing is ever sacrificed, ever, for any reason. This law has never been broken, never will be broken. Hell could only exist if the laws of Good could be broken. As such, it is an imaginary domain that is experienced as reality by blasphemers who think they can break laws and change the divine nature to suit it's own value system. As a representative of divine reality, Jesus has always fulfilled the laws of Good, according to the above premise: in truth, no one can break the laws of Good. More than just a representative, if Jesus was the actual divine reality, then all the more has he fulfilled the unbreakable laws of Good. Otherwise they would not be laws, now, would they?! As such, the laws of Good have always been fulfilled by that which is Good. Now, if Jesus is actually Good, and not a man (or demon) then yes, he has "fulfilled" the "law" of Good. But the Jewish legal codes are NOT the laws of Good. They are attempts to bring some order to the chaos of a blasphemous hell. As such, of course they are not enough. They simply dont apply to the real conditions of heaven as it is. At best, they might describe some level of "karma" or pay-back within the system that hell represents. But even "karma" is not a law of Good. Optimistically, they might be the laws of the god of this world. But the god of this world is not Good. Jesus did not "fulfill" Jewish notions of divine law (priestcraft). As reality itself, and only as divine reality, has Jesus fulfilled all laws of Good, primarily because they are unbreakable. He is able to fulfill them simply by being who he is: the divine Good, and denying any association to what thinks it can break the laws of Good: man. By accepting his divinity, Jesus also accepted the fact that he has not broken any of the laws of Good (which cannot be broken). Beware any religion that depends on the death of (sacrifice of) the truth for it's existence (not a good omen) . Since this world (hell) does depend on the death of (sacrifice of) the truth (the "Lamb of Good") for it's existence, this world (hell) is a kind of religion unto itself. "The world", as man believes it to be, only appears to that which believes in it. Such a religion would be happy to re-enact what gives it "existence" to begin with. This is hell's notion of "salvation" . Yes, the death of (sacrifice of) the truth remains very important in the value system of hell. It would be happy to sacrifice even the representatives of truth. Yes, sacrifice remains important to that which depends on it for it's salvation (for it's continued "existence").
I agree with Murray Turtle, Good has been reduced to an adjective in a war of words. Here is the god of words deciding whether to have mercy or to sacrifice, and reduce Good to an adjective.
Actually mercy is not the antonym (opposite) of sacrifice (and visa versa). Rather, cruelty is the antonym of mercy, and save (or hold on to) is the opposite of sacrifice. They become antonyms when sacrifice becomes something cruel, such as the killing of something to please a god. This could describe the central Jewish theme of priestcraft, which is the control of the largest number of people, with the smallest police force, using terrorism (the spectacle of murder) as one of its main methods of control. This is generally what governments do, and what Pontius Pilatus did in using the public murder of Jesus to terrorize (and gain control with the smallest police force) the Jews. Using terrorism to please a god is blasphemous, if you can believe Jesus when he describes Good as against public torture and murder, and for mercy instead. I don't see how you can interpret this any other way, especially if you consider Good to be consistently one-faced, and not two-faced. Your own scriptures, if you can believe James, makes an additional case for a one-faced Good, in opposition to Paul's two faced (traditional Jewish) god which both blesses AND curses. James is emphatic, blessing and cursing cannot come from the same mouth, if that mouth be Good...just as sweet and bitter water cannot come from the same stream...just as a rider cannot ride two horses...just as an archer cannot pull two bows. James simply argues that Good cannot take both sides of opposite issues, at times this, at other times that. For one, Good is not subject to time, so an argument for a two-faced god is an argument for a schizophrenic god that suffers cognitive dissonance. While this does indeed describe the god of this world (the traditional Jewish notion of god) and mankind generally, it is blasphemous when describing the Good of Jesus. Just saying Good is subject to time, and not the ruler of eternity, is itself blasphemous, and such blasphemers become subject to time, and the god of time, dividing time between "good times" and "bad times" and a myriad other expressions of cognitive dissonance which combines polar opposites into one strange world (hell). You're saying Good sometimes prefers "mercy", and other times prefers a public display of bloody murder to terrorize the largest number of people into not breaking laws using the smallest police force? I call that priestcraft, and i call priestcraft blasphemy. What do you call it?