The Crucifixion and Resurrection Allegory

For those who don't take the story of the crucifixion and resurrection literally, what do you think the story meant?

The cross is affliction,

To be 'fastened to your affliction' means to confront and deal with the evil, fear and darkness within you to overcome it.

To 'bare the cross' means to be one that is suffering through their afflictions to heal.

This is what is meant by Mary standing on the snake. Cause she is one who dealt with her affliction to be 'reborn/resurrected' in joy/light/happiness.

This is why most Christians will never actually be those truly of God, cause they do not deal with the darkness in this world. They merely 'curse' it as the work of the Devil, when in reality the darkness is inside us all. Their thoughts they 'bury' are not the devil but the darkness of their own character. But they are ones who will not bare the cross of their affliction, instead they try to suppress it under prayer, anger, and fear.

This is like bandaging a wound that has not been tended to. It will not heal, it will simply fester and become much worse.

reply to post by Ralphy

reply to post by BornOfSin


Thanks, I enjoyed your perspective of the story.

I never thought of it like that before. There is a interesting gnostic interpretation that I read also at: gnosticwarrior.com...

reply to post by Ralphy

For those who don't take the story of the crucifixion and resurrection literally, what do you think the story meant?

Repudiate the flesh.

Watch as I give up my flesh, my body, to be beaten, whipped and tortured. Do not recall that I am immortal, and this costume of flesh means nothing to me in the long run. I wish to teach that you too should sacrifice your flesh, sacrifice earthly goods for the promise of immortality.

As an immortal, my pain and death is an act. I am sure to rise again and be lifted into heaven; I know this because I can see into the future. Yet, let it be imagined that I feel pain, that it is I that bleeds and cries, and not this suit. Imagine that I sacrifice myself even though I am sure to live forever. Your human pain and flesh is nothing to me. But you see this charade as a sacrifice.

I am an immortal God on the cross, yet pretend that I am a man, like you, and let yourself be deceived.

A crucifixion did take place, but not of who many believe it to be (Jesus). Rather, someone else was put in his place and this can be proved because on the night of the raising, Jesus clearly prays for "the cup to be passed from him" and thus God answered his prayer, as he has always done with with Prophets and lifted Jesus unto him and placed a look-a-like of Jesus.

reply to post by Ralphy


Jesus' crucifixion is historical fact so how could you not take it seriously?

As for the resurrection, that's what separates the believers and unbelievers.

reply to post by Dubz310


Are you a Muslim?

That's quite an absurd thing to claim Dubz310.

RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Dubz310

 

Are you a Muslim?

That's quite an absurd thing to claim Dubz310.

Its not absurd if you look into the verses of the bible regarding the crucifixion

Dubz310

RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Dubz310

 

Are you a Muslim?

That's quite an absurd thing to claim Dubz310.

Its not absurd if you look into the verses of the bible regarding the crucifixion

The bible says nothing of the sort. You are being very deceitful.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Jesus' crucifixion is historical fact so how could you not take it seriously?

No it's not. There isn't even proof that Jesus really existed, outside of the bible, let alone that he was crucified.

Ralphy
For those who don't take the story of the crucifixion and resurrection literally, what do you think the story meant?

Can it still have allegorical meaning and symbolism if we accept it's historical factualness? Is that still allowed?

windword
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

Jesus' crucifixion is historical fact so how could you not take it seriously?

No it's not. There isn't even proof that Jesus really existed, outside of the bible, let alone that he was crucified.

Ah, the last defense! Nice try. (buzzer sound - wrong)

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm not going to watch your videos, as I've seen them all before and they've all been handily debunked. There are no legitimate contemporary sources to prove that Jesus actually existed.

jmcfarland.hubpages.com...

www.4truth.net...

www.godlessgeeks.com...

www.infidels.org...

Dubz310
A crucifixion did take place, but not of who many believe it to be (Jesus). Rather, someone else was put in his place ....

Um .... no. the gospels say that it was indeed Jesus who died .. and He did DIE. There is nothing to even remotely suggest that Jesus was somehow let out of His sacrifice by God. Jesus prayed for the 'cup to pass' ... but while on the cross Jesus confirmed that the cup didn't pass when He cried out 'my God, my God why did You abandon me'. And we know it was Jesus because His mother stood at the foot of the cross and Jesus addressed her.

reply to post by windword


I never knew you were a fierce anti-Jesus person, strange, and interesting.. it's an interesting way to try to deal with the significance and implications of the cross, no Jesus no cross, then you don't have to contend with it.

To each their own.

Best Regards,

NAM

windword
There are no legitimate contemporary sources to prove that Jesus actually existed.

That's right. The only place Jesus is mentioned during his time period (shortly after) are the gospels. That's it. So a person either believes the gospels, or they don't. But it's all based on just the gospels. I believe them. Others don't. Everyone can decide for themselves ..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Just to be clear. I'm not saying that Jesus never existed. Just that the evidence for his existences has been fabricated, forged, misunderstood and interpolated by zealot followers.

I get offended when people claim that his crucifixion is an historical fact. It isn't and even his very existence can't really be proven.

Christianity is based on faith, not fact.

windword
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I get offended when people claim that his crucifixion is an historical fact.

It can be considered offensive from a certain POV, I realize, although perhaps it could be said that the best defense, is a really good offense.

As I pointed out in presenting those four videos, which you flat out refused to even look at or consider, there's quite a significant extra-biblical historical record supporting the notion that the crucifixion was a real historical event that took place.

Some say the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth by the Roman's but that doesn't make any sense, nor would they be smart enough to cook up something to utterly ingenious as a representation of the tree of life and of the twin pillars of Justice and Mercy.

The "faith" is in how we interpret and respond to it, although even in that case, from what I can tell, there is a logic and a reason for it, with intent and by design, so there is a rational basis for faith in Jesus Christ as son of God.

It was meant to be offensive to some people or to the part of us that needs to be offended. When we read Jesus and examine his character and reasoning we can see that he was all-or-nothing and left little if no room for confusion as to his M.O. His message was intended to communicate something. In hindsight, it's rather hard to suggest that there's no one there and nothing being communicated.

People may be offended by a representation of the love of God communicated without compromise, and in part, that was the intent, but who really and honestly, in their innermost heart of heart's when push comes to shove, can offer up a respectable or legitimate defense against the love of God?

I don't know about you, but when we think this one all the way through, how can we not be brought to either tears or laughter in recognition of what's been communicated?

You cannot dismiss it in terms of its relevancy or significance and implications, so the ONLY thing left, to avoid it's import and export at all cost, even if need be at the cost of truth and reality itself, is to flat out deny that it ever took place, but, when we examine the historical record, and our reasoning for this defense against it's offense, something ought to begin to surface and become clear to us if we're introspective enough, about our own motivations and drivers.. (lol?)

But of course Jesus was and is the perfect gentlemen, so in the final analysis it is left up to us to discern what if anything it might mean or signify, so enough room is left for faith, but not much when one considers the rationale and intentionality involved.

So I think it's funny, that you find it offensive that it is considered a historical fact, while at the same time refusing to even consider for a moment the extra-Biblical evidence that it actually took place, while maintaining your composure by saying that all that stuff has already been handily debunked.

What a predicament!

Best Regards,

NAM aka Bob

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I understand the symbolism of "Christ" and "The Cross" on a spiritual level.

However, I do reject the idea that innocent blood can be used as a free ticket to heaven and can absolve sin. I don't believe in a God that needs a blood sacrifice to save us from his wrath. I do, however, "know" that many men and women were crucified by the Romans, and someone named Jesus of Nazareth certainly could have been one of them. I don't believe in the resurrection.

Personally, I think that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. But I think Jesus Christ is manufactured myth.

reply to post by windword


A brilliant use of human evil and the tendency to violence though, to use it against himself, as a way to put a double-bind on it, like some sort of double reverse sting hoodwink - you have to admit, surely?

It's all a matter of POV and context and framing, here now trying to see it from his POV as to it's fundamental logic, and reason..and love.

If everyone was destined for separation from God in condemnation for their sin, would you love us all enough to be willing to take the hit and in effect go to hell on our behalf, not that an all-good God of love could remain in such a state for very long mind you..

What I see there is like a door of sorts or a gateway access point whereby the frame of the door reveals the twin pillars of Justice, and Mercy, which bracket the Jewish mystical, kabbalistic tree of life, yet without for a moment making any compromise whatsoever with human sin and evil, so it's a true double-bind capable of binding up one thing, to set free another.

Understood deeply, I sense a type of practical God-joke in it at the expense of the devil even the devil that lurks within us all, so the laughter involved is truly joyful and triumphant, and untouchable, so it generates the possibility for our own good-willed, good-natured humor to be restored, at last while allowing us to recover our inner child who we might have kidnapped and locked away for all the wrong reasons and for a ransom to the lowest bidder.

It's an act of love to preserve and protect whereby the preserver is preserved, and the destroyer destroyed or to use Jesus' own analogy whereby the "strongman" is bound, and all his treasure (power) removed.

So from that POV it's like a reverse bank heist to recover every single bit of what was stolen, leaving the devil with absolutely nothing of any value or substance of any kind whatsoever.

That's what I think it means and signifies, in part maybe even the main part.