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
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
What a predicament!
NAM aka Bob
edit on 24-11-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)