Expressing this idea is difficult to relate. And I don’t understand the true significance of it. It seems that if Jesus destroyed his temple and which was “put back together” in three days. And to borrow a science quote from astronomer Carl Sagan: > If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Did God/Jesus create/recreate the universe through the crucifixion and resurrection? Just thinking about it seems way to deep and over my head.

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

In Apostles' Creed , the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor. >I believe in God, the Father almighty, >creator of heaven and earth. > >I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, >who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, >born of the Virgin Mary, >**suffered under Pontius Pilate,** >was crucified, died, and was buried; >he descended into hell. >On the third day he rose again; >he ascended into heaven, >he is seated at the right hand of the Father, >and he will come to judge the living and the dead. > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, >the holy catholic and apostolic Church, >the communion of saints, >the forgiveness of sins, >the resurrection of the body, >and the life everlasting. Amen. My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees? From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because > it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify > the martyrs of Christianity.” > > Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which > is the Mystical Body of Christ. That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the *Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else*? So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory) This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment: > ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment... I *always* had trouble with this. It is *honestly* not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the Trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter). Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied), a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly *giving something up*. It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?

In John 19:34, it says: >“But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” This moment has been interpreted in various ways throughout Christian history and theology. In some devotional contexts, particularly in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the outpouring of blood and water from Christ’s side is seen as a profound symbol of Divine Mercy - often connected with the sacraments (e.g., Eucharist and Baptism) and the birth of the Church. My question is: **Is the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side traditionally understood as an expression of God’s mercy? If so, how is this understanding supported theologically or doctrinally within Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant perspectives)?**

I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported? I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?

## Many Catholic Depictions of Christ Crucified Show the Piercing into the Right Side. ## **Here are some examples of crucifixes from monastery.com:** - **Crucifixion Icon ** - **Byzantine Crucifix ** And - **San Damiano Crucifix ** It was from the image of Christ in the crucifix at **San Damiano** which miraculously spoke these words to **St. Francis of Assisi**: > **"Go repair My Church."** ## What is the Catholic Basis and Support from the *depositum Fidei* for the Depiction of the Piercing into the Right Side of Christ? ## The **best answer** will have arguments from the **72 Books of the Catholic Bible** and **from the writings of the Church Fathers**. *If there is any relevant supporting information on the topic, such as from the well known private revelations, that may be included in an Endnote.* ---------- ## Related Question ## On what side was Jesus' stab wound? ----------

The text is from Luke 23:43, > And He/Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be > with Me in Paradise. The following are the words of Joseph Smith: > There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” King James’ translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was—This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits. (Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, page 309) Under Gospel Topics on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website the following summary is given: > When Jesus was on the cross, a thief who also was being crucified said, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The Lord replied, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits (source ). Notice the words, "The Prophet Joseph Smith "explained" that this is a mistranslation? How does he know it's a mistranslation? It's not a mistranslation according to Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson. Here is what he has to say on the matter. > "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Σημερον μετ' εμου εση εν τω > παραδεισω). > > However crude may have been the robber's Messianic ideas Jesus clears the path for him. He promises him immediate and conscious fellowship after death with Christ in Paradise which is a Persian word and is used here not for any supposed intermediate state; but the very bliss of heaven itself. This Persian word was used for an enclosed park or pleasure ground (so Xenophon). The word occurs in two other passages in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7), in both of which the reference is plainly to heaven. Some Jews did use the word for the abode of the pious dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. But the evidence for such an intermediate state is too weak to warrant belief in it." (source ) I am not aware that Joseph Smith knows any Greek so maybe the LDS can explain how Smith came up with how Jesus should have said, "the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits?"

Some traditional drawings of crucifixion of Jesus show him hanging on the cross with his feet at a man's height above the ground. That seems justified, as we read in Jn 19:28-29: > After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine **on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.** Given that the convict was prone to give violent and painful jerks on the cross , it had to be positioned in a pre-dug hole say, of three feet on the ground. Let us presume that the vertical beam of Jesus' cross measured 12 feet, considering the portion that went to the ground, the position of his feet above ground and the top portion of vertical beam where INRI was placed. Now, Jesus was made to carry the entire cross, with the lowest end dragging on the path. In terms of geometry, the ideal length of the cross would be proportionate to his height so as to allow enough space between the shoulder and the vertical and horizontal beams built at 90 degree angle. The cross on which he was crucified appears too long for such a proportion. One is therefore, inclined to conclude that Jesus in fact carried a cross proportional to his height, and was crucified on a different cross vertically much longer. My question therefore is: Was Jesus crucified on the same cross he had carried to Calvary? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

We read in Mark 15: 42-44: > "When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. " That implies that Jesus'death on the cross happened earlier than had been expected. Some medical professionals theorize that Jesus died of a heart failure, to which extreme mental stress had significantly contributed. They believe that the Lord's psychological trauma did not end with the Sweating of Blood at Gethsemane, rather followed Him to the Cross. Now, one should not expect that the Creed will be re-written to state that Jesus died on the Cross, of heart-failure. But, understanding the theory helps one to look at the mental agony of Jesus with the same gravity as his physical suffering. My question therefore, is: Has the Catholic Church taken cognizance of the theory that the terminal cause of Jesus's death on the cross was heart-failure ?

Was Jesus the only Roman crucifixion victim who was made to wear a crown of thorns? Are there historical references as to how often this action was done on political victims?

Was Pentecost 50 days after the feast of unleavened bread? Christ was crucified on the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread, and I was told that it was 50 days either after his resurrection or after his crucifixion.

What is the date this year for Jehovah’s Witnesses to commemorate the annual memorial of Jesus’ death? How can I find the time and location near me?

We read in Jn 19:19-20( KJV): > And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. So, we have the INRI sign on every crucifix. Now, the images of the Stations of Cross in the Church of Blessed Sacrament in Washington DC depicts a soldier carrying a scroll with INRI written on it. In one station, Jesus himself is holding the scroll ( You can see them during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Divine Mercy Chaplet held in the Church and recorded in 2020, on YouTube). My question is : Was a scroll with INRI inscription displayed near Jesus all the way to Calvary ? Are there any extrabiblical writings available on the topic ?

Peter quotes Joel 2:31 in **Acts 2:16–17**: > The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: > And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. But both Peter and Joel were talking about the "Day of the Lord", a terrible time associated with the end of this age, the Tribulation, the Apocalypse, etc.; it is *not* about the Crucifixion. What is the earliest record that associates a blood-moon (typically caused by a lunar eclipse) with the Crucifixion? **Clarification:** - Perhaps using the term "blood-moon" confused things. (I'd remove the term from the question, but there are already answers that refer to it.) - This question is not about the 3 hours of darkness on the afternoon of the Crucifixion. - The question is about the specific association of a *red Moon* with the Crucifixion (regardless of when it occurred or what caused the colour change).

Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but someone instead replaced Jesus Christ during the crucifixion, Surah An-Nisa - 157-167 states that: > and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the > messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was > only made to appear so.1 Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ > are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making > assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. > > Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty > All-Wise. Is there any historical evidence outside of the bible that i could use to prove to Muslims that Jesus Christ was crucified?

The Scriptures record that there was three hours of darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a pretty significant meteorological event. Furthermore, the morning of Jesus' resurrection, the Scriptures indicate that there was an earthquake. Additionally, when Jesus died, the curtain of the Temple was apparently torn in two. > Now **from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour**. Matthew 27:45 ESV > > And behold, **the curtain of the temple was torn in two**, from top to bottom. And **the earth shook, and the rocks were split**. Matthew 27:51 ESV I don't know if there are historical records of any earthquakes, eclipses, or such things in any of antiquity. Yet, I am indeed curious to know if there are, and, if so, if there are any secular historical records that could match up to these events that surrounded the death of resurrection of Christ.

How do Catholics understand Jesus to have died for three days and night and yet be killed on Friday and be raised Saturday, before daylight?

We are aware from the recordings in the Gospels of the Christians that phenomena such as an ***Earthquake*** shook (Matthew 27:51), and that there was ***darkness*** (Matthew 27:45). And other posted question have dealt with these in relation to Secular or Extra-biblical confirmations. But were there ***other happenings*** that could be considered the result of (caused by) the crucifying of Jesus, that are also recorded in extra-biblical documents and ancient writings? Especially events related to Jewish ritual or Temple worship? ***The Crucifixion of the Lamb of God*** is the linch-pin of Christianity. It is the crux of the message of salvation for the whole world! Jesus's cross contains the transom of history upon which balances the whole redemption story of God's love toward mankind. So one would justly conclude that there would be ***many significant events*** accompanying this event, pointing to its importance, and underscoring its uniqueness in the long history of mankind.

From Wikipedia : > Basilides is reported as having taught a docetic doctrine of Christ's > passion . Although Irenaeus’s makes no mention of Basilides having > written a gospel, he does record him as teaching that Christ in Jesus, > as a wholly divine being, could not suffer bodily pain and did not die > on the cross; but that the person crucified was, in fact, Simon of Cyrene : >> He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself >> did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to >> carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously >> crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to >> be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by >> laughing at them. Has anyone ever refuted this claim made by Basilides, that Simon of Cyrene has died on the cross instead of Jesus?