I was raised in a relatively conservative Christian household and was a devout member of a conservative church in my hometown for many years (in fact, the church was more conservative than even Focus on the Family, headquartered on the other end of the city; the church believed that using instruments while praising God was a terrible sin). In all my years of church camps, Sunday services, bible schools, and mission trips there was a particular quirk of some devout Christians that I’ve not yet been able to understand: why are some people so fixated on Jesus’ crucifixion?
I’ve known some Christians, typically male, typically very outwardly devout, who obsessed over the crucifixion in a way that seemed, at times, to border on the unhealthy. These were the people who would devout weeks of their sermons and/or small group lessons to the gory details of how many times Jesus was lashed, how much it would have hurt to be nailed and tied to a cross, how it would have felt to have died in that particular way, and so forth. They often reminded me of horror film aficionados discussing their favorite dismemberments, beheadings, tortures, and eviscerations from the various horror movies they’d seen; the thrill seemed to be in the amount of blood spilled and the number and volume of screams emitted rather than in the context of the situation.
These teachers and friends from my past have been in my mind a lot lately in light of tomorrow’s release of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. The movies has already become notorious without having been released. The flogging of Jesus occupies forty minutes of the film. The Romans flip Jesus face-down before hoisting his cross. The beatings are brutal. The violence is unflinching, some say excessive, and is the bulk of the movie. The film magazines and some film reviewers have spoken as though this is the first “uncensored” movie made about the crucifixion of Jesus, but they seem to have forgotten the glut of passion movies made since the beginning of the history of film. The last days of Jesus’ life, particularly the crucifixion, is one of the single most popular film subjects because when the first films were being made they were often based on stage plays, including the ever-popular passion plays. The number of passion films has declined since more original films began to be made, but there’s hardly been a lacking for them, so it seems that Mel Gibson’s film doesn’t seem to be adding much.
What’s interesting to me, though, is that of all the films made about Jesus the overwhelming majority of them have been made specifically about the crucifixion, often with the stated goal of showing the crucifixion in a more realistic, more brutal way than has ever been shown before. The level of violence has, yes, increased as movie standards for violence have shifted over the years, but why does the one-upmanship occur in the first place? Why do people feel the need to constantly run over the details of what is, regardless of your faith, a deplorable and cruel act?
The crucifixion-obsessed Christians, when I asked, explained that they spoke extensively about the particulars of the death of Jesus because they felt that not enough people really understood what Jesus had gone through in order to save them. I can understand this, except that there were often so many of them, so many stomach-churning descriptions from so many different sources, that it didn’t seem reasonable to me that a study of the Book of Mark should take six weeks, four of which were spent on the crucifixion alone. The number of repetitions, sometimes at the drop of a hat in casual conversation, seemed excessive to me.
Another explanation I’ve received many, many times is that this obsession is necessary because the crucifixion of Jesus was the single most important act committed in the Gospels. It seems to me that the Christians who say this have forgotten the rest of the story and why the rest of the story is important. The bulk of the New Testament is made up of letters dedicated to discussing why Jesus being raised from the dead was so important, why his being resurrected was such an everything-changing event. Even with this, though, the cross and the crucifix are the symbols of Christianity. I’ve never been to a church (with the sole exception of a Latter-Day Saint temple) where a cross was not on prominent display, bringing to mind the act of the crucifixion rather than the act of resurrection.
Why is the symbol of Jesus and Christianity so often the cross, a reminder of the bloody and disgusting and less important event, instead of the empty tomb, a reminder of the real reason why Jesus’ coming mattered at all?
I’m not asking this question to be antagonistic or critical of Christians or of Christianity. I’d genuinely like to know the answer..
Hi, I’m a lurker/big fan of your site and thought it was high time I said hello.
This post reminded me of, when I was a little girl and thus, not entitled to an opinion, I had to spend afternoons in Lourdes (village in the French Pyrenees where the Virgin Mary was seen by a couple of girls in the late 19th century) for the sole purpose of RELIVING the whole cross shebang.
We had to walk the way of the cross, stopping at each station and hear all the gory details of how many times Jesus was whipped, slapped, how much blood he lost etc. I swear the church people who accompanied us took an unhealthy delight in it. I think their main aim was to make us realise, us selfish 10 year-olds, exactly what he had done for us, probably in the hope that we might feel guilt and awe and a bit more respect for the Church.
The funny thing about Lourdes is that they organised the traffic system so you HAVE to walk through a dazzling array of shops selling holy water and glow-in-the-dark Virgin Marys to finally reach your car (minibus, in my case).
Noone seemed to find that shocking. I always did.
Childbirth-envy? Stop thinking about how many women suffer every day, every hour, all over the world, to renew humanity, and how many of them die in the process, and let’s all think about how this one guy was tortured that one time 2000 years ago… Yeah, that’s the important sacrifice.
I think Freud would have a field day with this. The young man-God, stripped naked (or nearly so), sweaty, bloody, screaming in agony, bound to the rigid wood, limbs purposely broken, stuck with a lance, pierced with thorns, nails through the hands and feet, biting on a vinegar-soaked sponge — there’s a very unholy thrill about the whole thing.
I’m not so sure the resurrection is more important, theologically speaking, than the crucifixion. The whole point of Jesus’ incarnation was so that he could be punished on behalf of all humanity, a feat he accomplished through being crucified. Returning to life was the proof that the crucifixion worked, i.e. that Jesus had conquered death, but it didn’t itself accomplish anything new.
The crucifixion also highlights the paradoxical strength-in-weakness theme of Christianity. Jesus’ truimph comes from exactly the event when the establishment thinks they’ve defeated him.
I think the resurrection is as important as the crucifixion (or more generally, the atonement). The reason Jesus died (according to Christian theology) was so that he could overcome death and be resurrected. While the atonement made possible the expiation of human sins, the resurrection made it possible for immortal existence. This, for some reason, is not often brought to the center of Christian discussions on Christ’s mission.
On the movie’s depiction of the crucifixion – My feeling is that this is indicative of a larger trend in movies. Directors are more intent on making things realistic and graphic. Spielberg did this with Saving Private Ryan. The idea is that by bringing more realistic detail into the movie, the viewer will be able to experience the moment more authentically. I’m not sure I buy into it, but it does provide a nice illusion of reality.
The obsession with the crucifixion derived in Western Europe in the Middle Ages. The Ortodox Church specifically avoid depiction of the crucifixion and emphasize the transfiguration and ressurrection as key events in the life of Jesus. The crucifixion is more a means to an end.
The obvious reason for this is the conditions of the Catholic West vs the Orthodox East. The West was in violent turmoil and the suffering of the common people was enormous; therefore, a suffering God was easier to relate to, and showed the people that God did not despise them for their suffering but was with them in suffering. On the other hand, the more stable East view the triumph of Christ and saw the crucifixion as less important than those triumphs (though a modified and symbollic cross was still used).
The traditions remain essentially intact even though the material conditions of the West vs. the East are now reversed. Of course the suffering Christ still has the original meaning among Christians in the Third World.
Here’s what I was told when I was a mere lad.
The cross is supposed to be a symbol of Mankind conquering death through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. The fear of eternal death and damnation, symbolized by the empty cross, loses its grip on Christians because Jesus already suffered and died for the rest of the world.
Yes, I suspect there’s a Protestant nod and wink somewhere in there to “The Catholics leave Jesus on the cross ’cause they’re obsessed with his death.”
I’m an atheist now, so y’all don’t be too spooked at me, a’ight?
Just found your blog recently(the Koufax award!:-) and it’s really interesting. Brayden mentions the Middle Ages which I think helped set up the whole miasma of body hating that for which the crucifixion is the apotheosis. The practice of self -flagellation, alive and well on Good Friday in the Phillipines originates from the self-denial of the crucifixion. It probably goes back to Judaic traditions but it was Christianity that turned self – denial and body hating into such an art form.
Buddhism maintains a similar line (‘all suffering is due to desire’) but it has a singularly different resolution via meditation and quiet asceticism.
Both religions however have made a point of sexual denial being a sine qua non of their practice. And both have regarded women as second class citizens.
Of course, Islam could also be similarly criticised. So it’s not a case simply of a peculiar religiosity or one religion being worse than others.
More reasonable is to conclude that patriarchal values have evolved over the last 2,500 years+ as a result of the economics of reproduction,the control of land, the development of weapons and warfare that enable slavery. Marx is pretty good on the evolution of slavery.
The imagination of the crucifixion, as celine points out, is sufficient to intimidate anyone into believing in the ‘sins of the flesh’. It boils down to that old chestnut, who benefits?
I always supposed that the vivid and violent images of the crucifixion were easier to keep in mind than the abstract message of tolerance, social justice, and peaceful advocacy for progressive change.
Let’s differentiate between the catholic and the protestant. You find the crucifix in the Roman Catholic churches – you find the empty cross in Protestant churches. For the protestant, the cross is empty – a specific statement about the importance of the resurrection over the crucifixion.
I suppose the protestants could have tried to adopt an empty tomb as a symbol but what would that have looked like? A mound of something up on the altar there, with a hole in it? No. Protestants do want to remember the sacrifice, but the sacrifice leads to the more important resurrection.
We should also keep in mind as to what is and what isn’t biblical in regards to the gruesome details depicted in these passion plays. I sat with my high school Sunday school class this week and we read through all four gospels to see what is really there.
In a nut shell – Jesus gets roughed up a little waiting for the Jewish council to accuse him: they blindfold him and smack him and ask him to “prophesy” who hit him. (Reminded me of the games we played in PE or Scouts back in the 60s.)
Jesus gets wacked in the head with a wooden staff by a Roman soldier(s) when they do the whole dress-up-as-a-king-crown-of-thorns-mockery bit.
Jesus gets whipped – in three of the gospels. But those three also provide a bystander to carry the cross for him. In John, Pilate offers to whip Jesus and set him loose but the crowd wants him crucified so they forgo the whipping, give him his cross and march him up to Golgotha.
But that’s it – some knocking around and a whipping. And then, “They crucified him.”
So basically, when they aren’t inventing from whole cloth, Gibson and all the filmmakers are relying on historical documentation to depict the torture – what we may know about 1st century Roman practice from historical evidence. Which is why any claims to be offering some sort of pure, scripture-based experience is crap.
So if it ain’t in the text, where does the obsession with the torture come from? Many evangelical protestants seem to have become focused on the crucifixion. Most Emmaus T-shirts, posters and banners are dripping with blood. As to why this fascination with the brutality, I can only speculate. One thought is that there are people who need that kind of motivation – guilt.
I heard this recently when someone asked one of these conservative protestant clergy about the shocking impact of the violent imagery on children. His response: “I hope it shocks them into getting right with Jesus.”
Then there’s the whole “atonement” thing which I must plead some ignorance to understanding but it sounds a lot like: God began to wonder if he screwed up with us so he came down as a human and lived among us to find out what our life is like. Then, he let us stomp the crap out of him and kill him. Just God’s way of saying, “Sorry, all is forgiven,” or something…thekeez
this is a specific form, like a sonnet or symphony. This is a “Passion Play” with a history going back a thousand years. The sermon on the mount does not fit the tradition, the wedding ar cana does not go into the conventions. It is a “Passion Play”
Now why passion plays were popular, why they took the form they did, and why Gibson chose to do a passion are valid questions….but folks, this is what it says it is, and what is in it is valid for its form
Ha! I had so many friends who were Church of Christ (your denomination yes, with the no-musical-instruments clause?)
Anyway, what struck me is how similar the overly-morbid discussions of Christ’s torture resemble the over-the-top depctions in the “hell houses” some churches do at Halloween.
And of course, the whole fire-and-brimstone sermon tradition, with the preacher who seemed to delight in describing *exactly* how Satan was going to torture you forever, in gory detail.
I think it comes from a religious culture where everything *but* violence is repressed. No sex, no intellectualism, but violence gets a pass (maybe because there’s so much in the Old Testament). So all those stifled urges and ideas get expressed violently. But protest it, and you’re trying to “avoid the truth” about Jesus’ sacrifices and the “wages of evil” and so on.
Which is ridiculous. We can discuss violence and understand it without glorifying it.
But then of course, I ain’t been in church in a looong time.
All I can add is that I recall as an altar boy –
I should add a gay altar boy with an attraction
to S/M – kneeling during Mass and looking at the
crucifix and getting a hard on :))
Did you ever notice how slim and defined and hot
Jesus’ body is always portrayed ? – but we know
in real life there was no loincloth
As many folks already pointed out so eloquently, there are many different forms of Christianity, which all approach the Crucifixion differently. Even within one church or parish, believers will have many different takes on the Passion.
I was raised Massachusetts Catholic (meaning pretty Democrat/liberal on the Catholic spectrum), spent some time in a Christian youth group that was more fundamentalist/evangelical than was comfortable for me, left Christianity altogether, checked out services in a few different denominations, and then recently joined the Episcopalians (thanks to their ordaining a gay bishop–hurrah!); so I’ve been questioning and examining Christianity for a while.
I go against the grain of typical theology, which states that Jesus died for our sins and overcame death for humankind with his Resurrection. I think that Jesus’ “main mission” was to show us that God dwells within all of us and that we–anyone–can reach a state of divinity (like Buddhist enlightenment). I also think that we can get to that state through many channels, through any loving religion, or through just loving, religion-free.
So why does the Crucifixion hold a huge place in the minds of some Christians? I, for one, would rather dwell on mutliplying loaves to feed the hungry crowd, healing the sick, and the reminder to “love one another as I have loved you.” I think there are a few psychological reasons for Crucifixion-obsession.
-We humans often dwell on the negative. A small-scale example: If 10 people were nice to you today, but one person did some nasty little thing, I bet the nasty thing would stay in your mind.
-We suffer as humans. It’s part of life. And a good, kind person can easily start wondering, why? Why must I suffer when I try to be good and kind? Is God punishing me? Well, even God suffered. God suffered so much because God loved us so much. God understands our suffering, is there with us through it. Now we tie in to the Resurrection–The son of God, a human just like us, overcame the ultimate suffering–a painful, humiliating death–to rise victoriously into Heaven and join with God. It doesn’t get better than that! I mean, the ancient Greeks were forever being struck down by lightning when they tried to climb Olympus!!
I highly recommend “Living Buddha, Living Christ” by Thich Nhat Hanh. Also, on a side note, Christianity has a sexist history–and, in some cases, present–but the Jesus I know from reading the Gospels was really, really great to women and counted them among his best friends.
You might be interested in this link which discusses two different philosophies of Christianity: Vicarious Atonement and Christus Victor. The article discusses the development of the current sacrificial view of the crucifixion and how it has developed over the years.
OK, I can see that the words I meant to be a link appear to be a different color (I think, being somewhat color blind the different colors of the links and the texts are not very different to me) but my browser doesn’t identify them as an active link. Thus I assume there is some filter in place to remove spurious links. So, I include this post wherein I am including a link to an article in my own blog (linked to in my previous post) wherein I link to the article I originally tried to point you to. Hope this works this time.
what i was told, and it makes sense to me, is that the crucifixion (and the associated goriness) emphasizes the physicality of christ: that here is a god who is not up in the clouds but down here, with us, embodied. and that this is really absolutely central to the entire christ story/mythos.
I agree. *Anyone* can die. And not a few people have been forced to die in painful ways. I’ve never quite understood why most Christians celebrate Christmas (anyone can be born, too – I was myself, even) as a bigger festival than Easter.
I always thought Christians celebrated Christmas as a ‘replacement’ holiday for Winter Solstice… many of what we consider traditional Christian holidays actually are knock-offs of pagan celebrations… who’d join the new religion if all you ever did was kneel on the cold stone and deny yourself all the time?
Say what you like, but I feel many religious holidays and the *way* in which they are celebrated have their roots in historical or political decisions made by the Roman Catholic church, not because of any particular biblical influence. The crucifixtion is largely a Roman Catholic fixation, as are the stages of the cross and I forget what other icons have fallen in and out of favour over the years.
Just comments from the peanut gallery ;-)
Easter is supposed to be the bigger holiday. In fact, it IS in most of Europe. I believe it’s capitalism that made Christmas so huge!
And yes, many Christian holidays do have roots in pagan ones. Just like most early Christian churches were built on top of pagan temples and those churches kept some of the temples’ traditions. It’s fascinating, actually. I could post more about it if anyone’s interested.
Easter is supposed to be the bigger holiday. In fact, it IS in most of Europe. I believe it’s American capitalism that made Christmas so huge!
And yes, many Christian holidays do have roots in pagan ones. Just like most early Christian churches were built on top of pagan temples and those churches kept some of the temples’ traditions. It’s fascinating, actually. I could post more about it if anyone’s interested.
Many (most? all?) Christian denominations believe that we are all born in a state of original sin, because we are collectively responsible for the fall of Adam and Eve. The Crucifixion (and not the Resurrection) is the act by which Jesus redeemed us all and showed that original sin can be expiated, by accepting Him as one’s Saviour. It is thus through the Crucifixion that we can attain eternal life.
NB: I’m not trying to proselytize anyone. I’m just trying to explain the belief.
As long as we’re on the subject, perhaps someone can clear up a related confusion on my part: How exactly is it that so many of these same Christians, obsessed with the violence and pain of Jesus’s death, consider it a Christian thing to do to support the death penalty?
Bill O’Reilly, of all people, asked a similar question of Bush: “Your favorite political philosopher, JC, knew what the death penalty felt like: he wouldn’t have supported your views on it, would he?”
emjaybee: no intellectualism? What was Thomas Aquinas, chopped liver? And that’s even before we get to the Jesuits.
It ain’t just Christians and the Crucifixion—there are too many Jews obsessed with the Holocaust. and Muslims obsessed with the Crusades. And this is politically exploited by fascists like Bin Laden, Sharon and Falwell in order to create a violent victim mentality (not that all of these religious groups haven’t been victimized at sometime in world history) that manifests itself in Israels “apartheid wall,” the bombing of abortion clinics in the USA—-and, of course, 9/11.
Here’s the written out link that JoKeR was trying to link to :-
http://www.sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.html
I’d like to pick up Bob McManus’s reminder that Gibson’s film is a passion play and hence should be viewed in that tradition. I (obvously)havent seen Mel’s latest opus, but for a very different but also highly explicit take on what a passion play can mean I’d suggest readers might contrast it to Dennis Arcand’s “Jesus of Montreal” which is about a character getting drawn into the staging of a passion play in Montreal. The Passion Play tradition has always involved it’s audience and relied heavily on the use of symbolism. Films are not generally regarded as Passion Plays because the audience is passive – Jesus of Montreal gets around this be being a film about a passion play performance, not a film of the last days of Christ itself.
Although I earlier broadsided the body hatred inherent in Christianity, reading the article that the JoKeR refered to, reminded me that Christianity does contain within it’s traditions almost paradoxical and contradictory views about the nature of sin.
Jace Seavers(the author) calls the two views “Vicarious Atonement and Christ Victor” – the legalistic versus the relational – law versus grace. He makes the telling point that evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine is completely on the side of the legalistic viewpoint –
“Tell a lie, steal a cookie, and you are condemned to Hell. Since no one can keep this kind of law, since “all have sinned”, their theory continues, God requires that Jesus comes and lives a perfect life so as to be an acceptable sacrifice to God”
He also points out that this legalistic viewpoint regards sin as individual rather than social.
The other side of the coin the relational side, he rather revealing points out fell out of favour in medieval times(but see below) because it was too ’emotional’ because it considered issues like “love, passion and sacrifice”. Another version of this distinction is that between “transcendent” and “immanent” versions of christianity(which I think Mary Daly in her earliest incarnation as a theologian talked about!). According to this take, the early christian church was a revolutionary organisation that passionately believed that the second coming was an imminent event and that they were living in the last days. This is certainly consonant with the Gospels and much of Paul’s writing. To this view relationships and sex even were part and parcel of the revolution of ‘love’ that Christ preached. In fact I recall Peter Ustinov relating in a doco about the early church that one of the many early churches believed in the sanctity of sperm and only ate white food! Very Greek!
It was the failure of this second coming to eventuate that lead to the reorganisation of the church along more accomodating lines and the adoption of a transcendent individualistic approach that was systematized by people like St Augustine – who really did dislike his body.
The thing that is often perplexing is that occasionally Christianity has bouts of this immanent eschatology and renews itself through what I guess some would call a Hegelian dialectic although I think it is sometimes more disruptive and less predictable than that.
Nevertheless, by all accounts, the Gibson film is certainly stuck in the transcendent evangelical world view of sin, and therefore, the concerns regarding it’s anti-semitism could be placed along side concerns about it’s Christian values “I may be able to speak the languages of men and even angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell.” 1 Corinthians 13.1
Iain: Good point. I would respond in two ways:
1. Aquinas and many other religious thinkers were highly intellectual, yes–but of course, it was a restricted intellectualism. Heretical thoughts and ideas were swiftly punished and suppressed throughout the church’s history. So I would argue that brilliant as many church thinkers were/are, their brillance was always chained and limited by fear of angering their Church, which could not only punish and excommunicate them, but often kill them.
Sort of a bonsai-tree intellectualism: beautiful, but not really the same as intellectualism that was free to grow as it wished.
2. Most of the people I went to church with (So. Baptist) were extremely uncomfortable with/unversed in critical thought of any kind. I don’t think this is at all unusual. It had nothing to do with actual intelligence, by the way, just with fear of stepping outside a boundary and making your social group uncomfortable–or of flirting with sin by having unapproved-of thoughts.
I am afraid that I have no explanations to offer about torture-obsession, as I was raised with the image of that as part of what made Catholocism so foreign to us Protestants. But it must feed some need, perhaps for guilt larger than oneself.
What has always seemed important to me about the crucifixion was that it was a terrible experience, and that Jesus’ response to it was both human and not, as was his entire stay on earth. What I mean can be summarized in this pair of last sayings: “Father, please take this cup away” — this is more than I can take, a moment of human weakness, and “Father, please forgive them” — a moment of superhuman compassion and forgiveness. I think that the first is a sentiment (or revelation of universal weakness) that followers can relate to, the latter a level of being that we can aspire to . . .
Just my two cents,
a
FATHER CORONA: Pax vneuti nicutm! down on your knees, now! D’ye recognize what I’m holidn’ over your head, lads?
INDIAN: It’s a Cross. The Symbol of the Quartering of the Universe into Active and Passive Principles.
FATHER CORONA: God have mercy on their heathen souls!
From The Firesign Theatre, of course. :)
What is a mystery to me is how people can take seriously both the Passion and the omnipotent triune God at the same time. The Jesus that suffered and ‘died’ on the cross is also an aspect of the Creator and master of the Universe. What happened, happened only because he willed it to happen; had he decided to get down off the cross, stop bleeding and have a brew with the boys, he could have done. He was indeed very like a movie director who is his own leading actor — perhaps that’s why Mel likes the role so much.
So where is the sacrifice? where the cost, the massive moral weight that offsets all the sins of humanity? I don’t see it.
Only Judas plays his role without the saving net of divinity. His is truly human suffering: physical, mental and moral. And yet it is cast aside.
Really, I’ve never understood any of this, nor its apparent appeal to the millions who embrace it.
JC
the golden bough, frasier, tells the story of the dying god as a cultural archetype, in a way that i think says a lot about election in the usa.
pain, and trauma, is a cue for learning to occur. marvin harris, in cows pigs wars and witches, talks about male genital mutilation ceremonies, an initiations in general. if you want to get a guy’s attention, so he’ll remember the message 3000 years later, just threaten to cut his manhood off, or something of that sort. the hemlock of socrates lacked something in the special effects department.
It amazes me that the Gnostic gospel discovery has done so little to affect the discussion. There one learns that this supposed Q document was just one of many. Personally, I reject the Paulist interpretation in favor of the Gnostic one. Which is, in other words, find the truth, don’t wait for it in the Great Beyond. I also believe that the Gospel stories have been fudged to wedge several of these ‘key’ Paulist elements in.
Also wanted to mention that many traditions have these very same stories. Sikhism was started by Nanak after he disappeared into a river in plain view of a multitude, and then reemerged three days later to announce that there was no Hindu, no Muslim…only God. That was just about 500 years ago, pretty recent.
The part of Mel’s film I liked best was when he and his black buddy tied a rope from his truck winch to the foot of the cross and pulled it out of the ground, saving Jesus. If you go to the film, don’t forget your whips! (and tissues, who knows. This religion stuff is pretty HOT).
The part of Mel’s film I liked best was when he and his black buddy tied a rope from his truck winch to the foot of the cross and pulled it out of the ground, saving Jesus.
Damn, one of the funniest things I’ve read all night.
John Casey sez: So where is the sacrifice? where the cost, the massive moral weight that offsets all the sins of humanity? I don’t see it.
Because you overlook Mark 15:34, where Jesus despaired: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
There’s no way I’m ever going to send any of my money to that Hollywood baboon Gibson, so I won’t ever see his shitty movie, but I’ve seen enough stills from it to know it’s pure sadistic pornography, a bible-thumper’s snuff flick. Just as in orthodox pr0n, Gibson shows us all the bodily fluids in close-up after obsessive close-up, but there is no love, no love at all.
Someone out there certainly will have seen this ghastly thing in a theatre by now. Can you tell me how they portray that terrible instant of despair described in that verse? or do they just pass over it altogether? It breaks the frame, you know, to show the Nazarene suffering pain and doubt the way we humans do. After all, by the standard narrative we’re supposed to imagine Jesus as some kind of comic book super-hero, with astounding, limitless magical powers – in other words, his suffering upon the cross was merely a fancy, phony play-act for the edification and entertainment of us mortals, and thus he was no hero at all.
“why are some people so fixated on Jesus’ crucifixion?” There is no answer, or for each person there is a different answer.
“Why is the symbol of Jesus and Christianity so often the cross, a reminder of the bloody and disgusting and less important event, instead of the empty tomb, a reminder of the real reason why Jesus’ coming mattered at all?” Tradition, as other’s have in a way stated.
As you pointed out the Church or Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints doesn’t use the cross as a symbol of Christ. The sacrament (Eucharist) is one of our symbols. Most LDS homes have pictures or paintings of Christ during his ministry as a reminder of his life and teachings, which are important.
One thing that makes Latter-Day Saints different from other Christians is that we believe that Jesus and God the Father are two separate beings (the Holy Spirit is a separate being and completes the God Head). The Atonement began in the Garden and Ended with Christ’s Ascension. In the Garden Christ took on the role of the Lamb of God. He was the Sacrifice and it was Heavenly Father that did the sacrificing, thus making it and infinite and eternal sacrifice (Take a look at Abraham and Isaac in the old testament as parallel). God withdrew, Christ understood Spiritual Death (separated from God) allowed himself to die, then opened the Gates of the Spirit realm – because he was perfect and by law could not be kept from “Heaven”. He then reunited the Children of God with the Father. It’s an amazing concept and very complex!
I think that whatever symbol a person finds to help them realize that event is fine. A Crucifix, a Empty Cross, a painting of Christ, the Ankh, the Feathered Serpent, the labyrinth or any other symbol. It isn’t the symbol that matters. In fact I find it wonderful that the Goddess Easter – goddess of rebirth – lends her name to the celebration of the rebirth of God’s Son. What matters is that it reminds us of our connection to Divinity.
I don’t know why people are obsessed with the crucifixion. But, I gotta ask…
Do you think these people may have watched”The Passion of Christ” one too many times?
Pingback: JoKeR's Blog - Faith and Religion
Pingback: Lean Left
Pingback: Lean Left
Pingback: Body and Soul
Christianity in the West if obsessed with the crucifixion because of the heretical doctrine of original sin. This doctrine was first put forth by St. Augustine about 400 years after the death of Christ. For the first 400 years of the church, no such doctrine existed. From this doctrine streams a variety of western heresies (from Roman catholicism to Calvinism). So WHY you are asking would I claim that original sin is the reason for the fascination with the crucifixion. Simple, because the crucifixion is the end of it all. If Christ came to pay a penalty or debt for the sins of man then it was on the cross that it was all accomplished. There is nothing left for the resurrection to accomplish. The resurrection is merely a parlor trick of God. A “proof” of his acceptance of the payment. But is this REALLY what the bible teaches? Let’s go back to Genesis. When God told Adam to not eat of the tree what did he actually say?
Genesis 2:17:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Now many people would have us believe that this ACTUALLY says:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof I shalt surely curse you to die.
But of course the bible does NOT say that. God’s “threat” to Adam was no threat at all. It was a warning. Just as a parent says to a child, “Don’t touch the hot stove or you’ll get burnt”. The parent does NOT mean “Don’t touch the hot stove or I’ll burn you”. God KNEW that if man (Adam) walked away from the source of all life, the fount of life itself, the natural consequence of that is death. Death is not something imposed by God. Death is something created and brought on by mans own free choice. God knew this and warned Adam. And Adam ignored God and walked away from and went out of communion with his creator – thus leaving the source of all life itself and bringing death into the created world.
So if God did not PUNISH man for his sins what did Jesus come to this world to DO? What is the POINT of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ? Well let’s see what the apostle Paul says to that question:
2Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. “. It is by sin that death entered the world – NOT by a punishment from God. The apostle Paul also said : “20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Christ came into the world to DEFEAT Death. It is by the defeat of DEATH that man is freed, that man is able to be reconciled to God. It is by the defeat of death that Christ accomplishes what He came into the world to do. Western Christianity after Augustine has no need of the resurrection – the cross accomplishes salvation. But according to Paul, it’s NOT the cross that accomplishes salvation but the resurrection. It is by the resurrection that we are made free. It is by the resurrection that Christ saves man. The words of the Apostle Paul:
12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
Those are strong words if, given the doctrine of orignial sin, the cross pays the debt. If on the cross the punishment that God intended for all mankind is taken by Christ, WHY would Paul say this about the RESURRECTION? It’s because its ONLY through the resurrection is man made free. It is ONLY through the resurrection that God frees man from his OWN sins and the CURSE he brought upon himself. Man was so far down and lost and miserable, he had NO HOPE of salvation. Christ becomes incarnate and takes on death specifically so that He could defeat the very curse that man imposed on himself but was unable to free himself from – DEATH itself. Through the resurrection, death is defeated. St. John Chrysostom says it best in his Paschal homily:
If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let them enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.
If anyone is a grateful servant, let them, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.
If anyone has wearied themselves in fasting, let them now receive recompense.
If anyone has labored from the first hour, let them today receive the just reward.
If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let them feast.
If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let them have no misgivings; for they shall suffer no loss.
If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let them draw near without hesitation.
If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let them not fear on account of tardiness.
For the Master is gracious and receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has labored from the first.
He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one He gives, and to the other He is gracious.
He both honors the work and praises the intention.
Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward.
O rich and poor, one with another, dance for joy!
O you ascetics and you negligent, celebrate the day!
You that have fasted and you that have disregarded the fast, rejoice today!
The table is rich-laden: feast royally, all of you!
The calf is fatted: let no one go forth hungry!
Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness.
Let no one lament their poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn their transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was taken by death has annihilated it!
He descended into Hades and took Hades captive!
He embittered it when it tasted His flesh! And anticipating this, Isaiah exclaimed: “Hades was embittered when it encountered Thee in the lower regions”.
It was embittered, for it was abolished!
It was embittered, for it was mocked!
It was embittered, for it was purged!
It was embittered, for it was despoiled!
It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and came upon God!
It took earth and encountered Ηeaven!
It took what it saw, but crumbled before what it had not seen!
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the first-fruits of them that have slept.
To Him be glory and might unto the ages of ages.
Amen.