Why was Jesus Tortured?

[sylvius]

If Jesus did not suffer excruciating pain after being flogged to almost the point of death, then having to carry a huge cross on his back that was no more than raw meat, and finally being nailed and hung on a stake,.

where it says so?

[duxrow]

Probably a hyped Cross between Isa53 and Ps22. The wooden cross was carried by Simon the Cyrenian according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Does that looks like a man in excruciating pain, torture and agony when He could speak so well? Where is the passage that says Jesus was crying and groaning ion pain and agony?...Nothing, NONE!

The Bible says that Christ was in agony when he was merely anticipating the torture he would endure on the cross:

Luke 22:39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. 40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. 41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. 43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

But Cheow says that Christ didn't suffer on the cross because he could speak "so well." And so he ignores all truth and reality that a death by crucifixion would be excruciating in the most literal sense of the word. I've never heard of any Christian denying that Christ suffered extreme torture on the cross. I think the Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraaff went a little over the top when he said Christ "suffered more than the cumulative sufferings of all of mankind" but at least that makes more sense than denying he suffered at all. If Cheow's view proves anything, it is that the words of the Bible are meaningless to Christians who just make up whatever they want. And that's particularly ironic since Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ambiguous words. I am so glad to be free from such delusions!

You and I knows that not all mainstream Christian beliefs are correct; we are in the same boat.

You got that right! There is no such thing a "Christianity." There is nothing but "Christianities" that people have been making up for 2000 years. That's just another reason to reject it all. There's no reason to believe any of it.

I have always been a Universalist in the sense that only the incorrigible will be destroyed. Those who are righteous and who repented will be saved. What's wrong with having my own interpretations different from main stream Christians? Am I not supposed to have my own opinions? What about the thousands of Christian sects who have different doctrines?.... Are they wrong by not following mainstream Christianity?

There's nothing wrong with you have your own opinions Cheow. But there also is no reason to believe that Christianity is true, especially since there is no such thing as "Christianity" but only "Christianities" that people have made up. Might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Almost every religion belief in hell, what's wrong with that? Whether Muslim or Hindus or whatever goes to heaven or not is not for me to judge. But I do know that for God to ultimately convert them to believe in a Christian God is as easy as ABC as after all we can only have one Creator God. This is what I mean by that whatever God one believes ultimately refers to the Creator God.

What's wrong with God creating people with the intent that they will suffer forever? If you don't know, I can't tell you. You will need to figure that out for yourself.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If it wasn't part of God's plan it never would have happened.

Mankind does have a mind of its own. It was Gods will that we recieve him, not crucify him.

That's not what the Bible says. Rose is right - it was God's plan from the beginning:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

I don't see any room for ambiguity here. It was God's plan.

[CWH]

If Jesus did not suffer excruciating pain after being flogged to almost the point of death, then having to carry a huge cross on his back that was no more than raw meat, and finally being nailed and hung on a stake, then he was no flesh and blood man like you or me.

Where in the Bible did it says that Jesus was flogged almost to the point of death? And Jesus never carried his own cross, it was Simeon. Where have your knowledge of the Bible gone to? Time to take it up Bible studies again. Where in the Gospel did it says that Jesus suffered in agony and pain and torture on the cross? If Jesus could alleviate the pain and agony of the sick, could He also have alleviate His own agony and pain on the cross? I see no reason why He couldn't. Jesus could have disappeared from the cross so that He need not face "the agony and pain" of hanging on the cross as he did it in the midst of the crowd who were trying to arrest him, why didn't He did it?

Giod Bless.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus never carried his own cross, it was Simeon. Where have your knowledge of the Bible gone to? Time to take it up Bible studies again.

John 19:17 They took Jesus therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.

Where indeed has your knowledge of the Bible gone to?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Jesus never carried his own cross, it was Simeon. Where have your knowledge of the Bible gone to? Time to take it up Bible studies again.

Well, we shouldn't be too hard on Cheow for not noticing the verse in John, since it contradicts the account given in the three synoptic Gospels which say that Simeon is the one who carried the cross:

"And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified. Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross. And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull, they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink" (Matthew 27:31).

"And when they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him out to crucify Him. Then they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross. And they brought Him to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull" (Mark 15:20).

"Now as they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, who was coming from the country, and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus. And a great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him. (Luke 23:26).

"Then he delivered Him to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus and led Him away. And He, bearing His own cross [CONTRADICTION], went out to a place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha, where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the center" (John 19:16).

So there we have it. Yet another contradiction in the Bible. Nothing new here.

[Rose]

Where in the Bible did it says that Jesus was flogged almost to the point of death? And Jesus never carried his own cross, it was Simeon. Where have your knowledge of the Bible gone to? Time to take it up Bible studies again. Where in the Gospel did it says that Jesus suffered in agony and pain and torture on the cross? If Jesus could alleviate the pain and agony of the sick, could He also have alleviate His own agony and pain on the cross? I see no reason why He couldn't. Jesus could have disappeared from the cross so that He need not face "the agony and pain" of hanging on the cross as he did it in the midst of the crowd who were trying to arrest him, why didn't He did it?

Giod Bless.

Again, you have missed the point of this thread. The question wasn't whether or not Jesus could have "disappeared" from the cross as you say, but why was it necessary for him to be tortured in the manner he was. As I said in my opening post, none of the animals that were sacrificed according to Jewish law were ever tortured before their death, so why was it needful for Jesus to suffer in agony before he died, if all that was needed was the death of a sinless man?

The Gospel of Matthew says they led Jesus away to crucify him and then compelled Simon to bear his cross, implying that Jesus could not bear his own cross. Also, anyone who has been flogged 39 times could easily be near the point of death, and you're saying he wasn't in agony or pain! I think you need to do a little research on the matter.

Take care,
Rose

[weeder]

Strueth.
They were on there way out, then at some point someone else carrys his cross.
Who was carrying the cross as they made their way out? How much time time elapsed from when they made their way out till someone was found to bear it.?

Jesus bearing his cross doesnt nesseccarily mean that he carried a piece of timber from point A to point B....Rather he was like a lamb led to the slaughter. He confessed that this was the reason he was born ,and silently bore the burden (cross).



I prepared this earlier today in response to Rose and Richard.



Thank God that he didnt abandon the Human race to its fallen, death infested state.
He came up with a plan to restore Mankind to its former glory in paradise....death, pain, disease removed.
His plan was to incarnate himself as a man and find himself in the realm of death. Being sinless, death had no hold on him..and he overcame it. God so LOVED the world that he gave his Son to save it.
God knew the kind of death that awaited him and he suffered it to save our sorry ass.


All I am saying is that mankind played its part in his death. It was all very Roman. If it was up to the Jews they would have stoned him to death, and if the taliban was the ruling power at that time they would of probably beheaded him. The devil is in the details.

So yes, it was Gods plan that the Son be born a legitamate Human being and die a human death in order to break the curse that plagues humankind by overcoming its death.
God simply foresaw that his hands and his feet would be pierced etc, something foreign to Judaism,but true of rome.

[duxrow]

Squeeze a little more juice from this orange -- The promised son of Abraham carried the wood up the mountain in Gen22:6, and he was a type or pre-figure of Christ the promised son, so I think the Holy Ghostwriter is throwing us a curve with this one.. designed to encourage our debate and study.

I still am persuaded that Jesus carried the 'figurative cross' instead of the wooden one,
and I know all four of the gospels are true down to the tittle, so maybe there was an interval when splinters were possible??