When did Jesus actually die?

[PoloPrincess]

Can someone point me in the right direction?
We know that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and he rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Then what happened? When and how did he finally die?

53rd

I don't view it as anything, because I know it's not real. I'm just quoting your points back at you.

I'm amused at your definition of free will.

If I broke in your home, took your family hostage at gunpoint and threatened to make them suffer unless you told me what a great guy I was, it wouldn't really be a free choice you would be making, would it?

What do you specifically believe then? Becuase at the moment it's very easy to get out of any criticism by playing the 'well some Christians believe x' card...

If I broke in your home, took your family hostage at gunpoint and threatened to make them suffer unless you told me what a great guy I was, it wouldn't really be a free choice you would be making, would it?

Again, you’re viewing this as a punishment: “God threatens to torture you!” Many schools of Christian thought do not view it as a punishment, so so not view God as threatening to torture people.

It is clearly a very deeply-held part of your own beliefs that Christians fundamentally believe in this conception of the afterlife. You cling to your belief so strongly that you resist any evidence Christians don’t share it. Which is your call, I suppose, but it’s hardly a damning (see what I did there) argument against what those Christians actually do believe.

What do you specifically believe then?

Probably somewhere between Origen and Barth.

Surely the whole point of your religion (most religions even) is the "rewards in the afterlife"?

It's the egocentric, human-centred universe that demands that the entire cosmos could not possibly exist without ME.

Surely the whole point of your religion (most religions even) is the "rewards in the afterlife"?

Not really. That’s quite a childish view. It also leads down some theological paths I find fairly repellent - not just the “kill these people and you’ll go to heaven and be rewarded” view, but more mainstream ones like “we don’t need to take THAT much care of the planet, it’s not really our home.”

But it is the main attraction of this death cult religion in so many places "I can bear the suffering now, as I'll have my rewards in the next life". That's why dictators so love it - it keeps the downtrodden meek and pliable.

Indeed, that's one of the theories of it's origin in Roman times...

That's why dictators so love it - it keeps the downtrodden meek and pliable.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Yes, there's no Christians being oppressed anywhere

53rd

Probably somewhere between Origen and Barth

Right...Ok.

🤨

But for the benefit of the non-theologians in the discussion, can you actually tell us what you believe about the existence or otherwise of Hell?

Otherwise it feels a bit like you want to avoid being pinned down on any particular position by just countering every direct criticism with a 'well some Christians don't believe that so your wrong to generalise'.

I have separate arguments I can bring that are specifically tailored to any of the positions you have mentioned, I just need to know which one you actually believe is true so I don't get another 'haha but thats not what I think' style response.

Otherwise it feels a bit like you want to avoid being pinned down on any particular position

I had this with a JW who knocked on my door. He kept saying it wasn't his place to say if witches should be put to death (even though the bible is clear) which I pointed out sounded like he had worked out it was barbaric and that he was therefore morally superior to his god.

I'm wondering why it is so important to PatriarchyPersonified to have a chance to argue against 53rdWay's beliefs. Surely 53rdWay's beliefs about the nature of hell can have no influence of PatriarchyPersonified - so why does he or she seem so concerned to have a pop at them?

The point of being a Christian isn't 'pie in the sky when you die', it is orienting your life to God. And one of the things that that means is living differently in the here and now - loving your neighbour as yourself. That's why early Christianity was so attractive to oppressed groups, particularly women and slaves, and why early Christians set up schools and hospitals, cared for those in prison and saved babies left out to die. Of course, anyone could have done all those things, but actually it was Christians that actually did them because of their belief that all are equally loved and valued by God, and that God commands us to love others as we love ourselves.

But for the benefit of the non-theologians in the discussion, can you actually tell us what you believe about the existence or otherwise of Hell?

It’s a theological position. Wanting a non-theological explanation is like saying “give me an explanation of cell structure that doesn’t include all this ‘biology’ nonsense!”

Otherwise it feels a bit like you want to avoid being pinned down on any particular position by just countering every direct criticism with a 'well some Christians don't believe that so your wrong to generalise'.

I told you what the major denominations believe. Between them they include most Christians on the planet. Why do you think that what I, personally believe is going to give you a better insight on what Christians believe than that? I’m one person.

I have separate arguments I can bring that are specifically tailored to any of the positions you have mentioned

But I’m not trying to convince you that what I believe is true, so why do you care?

You made some statements about what Christians believe and what Christianity teaches. I corrected you. You now seem to be wanting to argue against what I believe about hell, because (I’m guessing?) you’re convinced that somewhere deep down I really do believe there’s a demons-and-pitchforks dungeon and I’m not admitting to it?

what Christianity teaches

Ah well that's the ultimate broad church

Only because all the other lot kept schism-ing

53rd

Sigh, ok.

It’s a theological position. Wanting a non-theological explanation is like saying “give me an explanation of cell structure that doesn’t include all this ‘biology’ nonsense!”

I know it is. However you don't actually tell us in any detail what that position is. That's the basis of the question. You know very well that is the basis of the question. Please don't play dumb.

I'm happy with a theological answer, just a specific one.

I told you what the major denominations believe. Between them they include most Christians on the planet

I know you did, however you never told me what you believe. I'm well aware you are only one person, but I'd like to know which of the many, mutually exclusive positions described you actually subscribe to.

But I’m not trying to convince you that what I believe is true, so why do you care?

I care because we are involved in a discussion about the nature of Hell, in which we both disagree. You challenged me when I said that Christians believe that Hawkins (as an atheist) will be suffering in Hell. According to you, that's not what most Christians believe. However every example of a belief in Hell you have described so far has involved some form of suffering or 'torment'. (admittedly I used the word torture not suffering, so please, have that point rather than wasting your next response jumping all over it like a GCSE level debating team)

Every time I have challenged you on a specific point, you have responded with either 'that's not what some Christians believe' or 'That's not my belief' (or words to that effect.)

While this protean position certainly keeps you from being pinned down on anything, its ultimately quite tiresome.

I don't really want to go through and exhaustive list of every different 'type' of belief in Hell and the necessity of suffering for non-Christians and atheists in each of them individually, that would be quite annoying I'm sure you will agree?

I propose that your conception of what 'Hell' is must necessarily involve suffering and/or torment. You say it doesn't. The only way to prove your point is to describe your position.

If you 'don't care' about proving your point, then fine, but why challenge me on this in the first place and keep coming back at me?

I know it is. However you don't actually tell us in any detail what that position is. That's the basis of the question

I did, dude. I told you what my theological position is, using references to well-established theologians. Barth and Origen aren’t obscure figures. What I didn’t do was produce a special easy-read, dumbed-down, all-references-to-complex-theology-removed version, because.... why? I’m not trying to convince you of my view, so why do you want me to do all the homework here?

You challenged me when I said that Christians believe that Hawkins (as an atheist) will be suffering in Hell.

Yes, indeed. Plenty of Christians, including me, do not believe that.

What puzzles me is that you seem to find this disappointing, somehow. Why is that? You have correctly identified that “Hawking is eternally tormented in hell for being an atheist” is an awful, repellent view - so surely you should be happy that others don’t share it? Instead, you seem annoyed and disappointed. It’s almost like you want people to believe this, that you derive some kind of satisfaction from other people believing it. Why?

so please, have that point rather than wasting your next response jumping all over it like a GCSE level debating team

Another point: why so hostile? Why do you feel that the correct position to take with anyone who holds a different view is this aggressive, snidey, no-prisoners approach? I get why you’d do this with people trying to convince you that you’ll burn in hell or something, but why when you’re just encountering people who hold different views to you?

(Also it’s Hawking, with a G.)

I've noticed people melding Dawkins with Hawking today. Like one big super-atheist.

Anyway, Passover circa AD 33.

53rd

So, still no actual, clear answer then?

🤨

Ok. Fair enough.

That's an answer in itself.

Thing is, you could have very easily found out what Barthes and Origen taught about hell by, say, googling 'Barth Origen hell', in a mere fraction of the time it's taken you to harangue me. And yet, that's not where you chose to put any effort, at all.

Some might say that this indicates your interest in what I actually believe is very thin indeed, while your interest in getting to throw repeated aggressive or snide comments at me is fairly substantial. And would suggest further that this is what lies behind your entire position here. After all, if your interest was in debate for the sake of debate, you would believe in the basic principles of an agreed-upon motion and a reliance upon arguments rather than personal attacks. And if your interest was in theology as an abstract subject, you would... well, you'd have heard of Origen, for a start.

It could be that be that you are personally affronted by people who believe that smart, compassionate atheists are being tormented in hell. And yet, no, that can't be it either - because if that truly affronted you, you'd be glad to find that people didn't hold that position. You certainly wouldn't be annoyed and disappointed, as you are.

So what I'm thinking is, the evidence points to this: that the aggression and the snide comments aren't a by-product of what you want to do. They are what you want to do. Arranging it around theology is merely a peg to hang it on and justify it to yourself, a self-justification for the motive of, well, getting to attack and feel superior to a group of predominantly women.

Kind of like the medieval witch-hunters, really.

"We don't enjoy burning witches, we just have to do it, because they are awful people who believe and practice awful things."
"No, we don't."
"Yes, you do, you're just lying about it! See, that's PROOF. Witch!"

(Funnily enough, I think you'd get on pretty well with some of my co-religionists. You should catch up with them some time! It'd give them a break from their very-super-important day job of yelling "HERETIC!" at Jesuits on Twitter.)

53rd

So your now happy to admit that your 'clearly stated position' actually required a significant excursion into Google to understand?

Thanks for being honest eventually.

If you want a good example of a personal, ad hominem attack, I suggest you re-read your last post.

🙂

I love the phrase between Origen and Barth. I'm nearer to Rahner myself I think but that may be because you can just about get away with using timey-wimey in theological debate when using Rahner.

And if your interest was in theology as an abstract subject, you would... well, you'd have heard of Origen, for a start.

Well quite.

It doesn't seem to me that a 'significant excursion into google' is a great deal of effort to make to learn about something. When I typed 'between Origen and Barth positions on hell' I got a number of entries in less time than it took me to type the search phrase.

Also Patriarchy, people who debate in glass houses really shouldn't throw ad hominem stones. Unless you somehow think that accusing 53rd of playing dumb and acting like a GCSE debating team is somehow not a personal attack.

Socrates probably didn't exist, but I still enjoy reading about the things he is supposed to have said.

Sorry, I know that this is not the point of this thread, but you've said this twice now, and I have no idea where this probably is coming from. Nearly all scholars both of the period and of philosophy would not argue otherwise (the 'socratic problem' does not involve saying that Socrates did not exist) - and your earlier discussion of sources being the key proof does not help you here, as there are multiple contemporary or very near contemporary sources for his existence. So I am not sure why this keeps cropping up as part of the argument.