We read in John 18:37-38 how Pilate poses an inquisitive question on Truth to Jesus : > Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate asked him, “What is truth?” The Evangelist does not record as to what answer Jesus gave to Pilate, but goes on to say: > After he (Pilate) had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no case against him.” It is possible that Pilate posed the question on Truth just to tease Jesus, and did not expect an answer. It is also possible that the Lord knew the futility of explaining to Pilate and therefore, kept mum. Be that as it may, John does not record the answer, nor does he talk of Jesus's silence, whichever may have taken place in response to Pilate's query. My question therefore is: **Why does John the Evangelist *not* record Jesus' response to Pilate's query on Truth?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

While answering another question , a comment perplexed me and I cannot quite understand it. > "It was not Christ 'fulfilling the law' that saved, but him bearing the punishment for sin we all deserve, in our stead. So God's righteous punishment for sin was borne by Christ though he was sinless. **It wasn't his Passion. It was his faith unto death.**" **Which Christian faiths teach that**1 it was not the "fulfillment of the Law" & "Passion of Christ" that saved us, but instead Jesus' Faith? That is... God's Faith in God, saved us. 1**(The bolded phrase above is my Primary Question, i.e. which denomination/faiths and with what reasoning)** To my understanding God does not have Faith. Perhaps there is an alternative definition of "Faith" being used here that I am unaware of? (*Alternative thought, that might explain my confusion*) Even the faith tag on this site [says]((https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tags/faith/info)) : "Faith: Belief, trust, and loyalty **towards God**, Jesus, and the Christian religion." I've been unable to find anything online or in reference sources, because all "hits" when searching the term "God+Faith" give results about how humans should have faith in God. Not about how God has Faith.

Dual wills of Jesus, as human and as God, are on full display in the Synoptic gospels' account of Jesus's suffering and temptation at Gethsemane. Let's first review how each gospel recounts the story: - **Matthew 26:38-39**: > Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (KJV) > Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (ESV) - **Mark 14:34-36**: > And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (KJV) > And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (ESV) - **Luke 22:42-45**: > Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 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. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, (KJV) > saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, (ESV) Reading between the lines, it's obvious there is temptation, sorrow, fear, and surrender within the human soul of Jesus and we (who are called to take up our cross) can relate. Luke also added that an angel appeared to strengthen Jesus and how the disciples were *also* sorrowful. Next, let's review several obvious doctrinal implications applicable to this episode to limit allowed interpretations: - **As God** Jesus never ceases to want to save us by being the Passover Lamb to "take away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). - Chalcedonian definition allows us to reconcile this apparent ambivalence of wills at Gethsemane by interpreting the above passages that **as Man** Jesus is struggling to align his human will with his own Trinitarian will while remaining sinless since Jesus managed to overcome all his natural feelings to *not* deviate from the Trinitarian mission to go through with the Divine plan. - Jesus who is also fully God must have continually loves Himself *immanently* in Jesus, never ceasing to do so during the whole Passion, even at the cross when Jesus cried "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (!) We can safely assume that Jesus **as Man** could do perfectly the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" partly because in his human consciousness he feels and trusts that he is so fully loved by God. So far so good. My question has to do with characterizing what's going on in Jesus's human mind and will so that it can help us to be more like Jesus. For example, in our own walk of discipleship, it's common to distinguish "surrender" from "submission" which for the purpose of this question, I'm defining the two terms as follows: - "submission" as **negation of will** like a soldier doing something that he may not agree personally; this has been characterized by obedience out of **slavish** mentality or out of **fear**. Colloquially we say: "I do it simply because you told me to". At best, although it is done like a robot, I am still open to doing it with better motivation in the future. - "surrender" implies **aligning one's will with another's** thus with some level of agreement; this can be characterized by obedience out of **trust** mentality (like children) and by **love**. Colloquially we say: "I do it as you asked me to, although I need help in uniting my will with your perfect loving will because of .... (you name it)". So even though we don't feel like forgiving enemies, surrendering our selfishness to love difficult people, or dying as a martyr, because we always want to be yoked with Jesus (i.e. tagging along) we then rely on his Holy Spirit (Love) to strengthen us in uniting **in love** our will with Jesus's will. It is obvious that as children of God we are asked to "surrender", not to "submit" (per definitions above). Because Jesus is our model, I think **conceiving Jesus's struggle at Gethsemane as a "submission" (negating will) rather than as a "surrendering" (uniting in love) is out of bound**. Is this true? The difficulty seems to be **textual**: those who insist on literal meaning may interpret Jesus's "not as I will, but as you will" and the language "deny himself/ lose his life" (Matt 16:24-25) as a "submission", negating his human will. **But I think this is abhorrent, since there is no virtue in mere submission without love.** Rather, we should see Jesus's sinless internal struggle episode at Gethsemane as a revelation of how hard it is to love, that even Jesus, **while operating in his human nature**, had to struggle to align his human will with His own revealed divine will, as a model for us to unite **in love** our own will with our Father's will that is revealed to us in graced discernment. This is in contrast to acting as a slave / soldier who simply executes what Scriptures command us to do. How can the Trinity doctrine and Chalcedonian definition help us here? **My question is very specific**: Formally & philosophically, **what kinds of interaction of the 2 wills are allowed within the Chalcedonian orthodoxy?** **What are some examples of interaction that are out of bound?**

Can a divine being claim to have made a very heavy sacrifice when he uses his creative power and makes another vessel / being / substitute creature that he gives away or gives up to be tortured on his behalf? **Is it Him who is suffering or the being he created?** When humans sacrifice a cow / sheep / goat, place the knife on its throat and cut it, is it the animal or the owner that feels the pain?

Right before his crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry his cross and to wear a crown of thorns. Why was he made to wear the crown of thorns?

***Vignettes from Nature***, a book written by Grant Allen and published from London in 1881 has this interesting note: the piece of cloth with which Jesus' face is believed to have been wiped on his way to Calvary was originally known in Latin as 'Vera Icon' meaning 'True Image' which was adapted to name the woman saint who had done the act of compassion.Hence the name St. Veronica. There is no reference of the incident in the Gospels. But, it is mentioned in the 'Via Sacra' or Way of the Cross , a Catholic devotion commemorating the Passion of Christ. Can someone substantiate how St. Veronica got her Name? PS: There is a question on CSE involving the subject, but does not answer my question. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48014/where-did-the-account-of-veronica-originate

We read in Matt 27 how Jesus was put to trial before the Roman Governor: > Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed......... For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. ....... The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” All of them said, “Let him be crucified!” Then he asked, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” The charges levelled against Jesus were blasphemy and misleading of the Jews against Roman empire, calling himself their king. The first one would come under Hebrew law and the trial & punishment was of summary nature, as we see in Jn 8:58-59: > Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. And we see the Jewish leaders saying to Pilate: > The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.” (Jn 19:7) Those days, only the Romans had the power to award death sentence to Jews (Jn 18:31). But blasphemy was not listed by Romans as a crime demanding death sentence. The second charge could not be substantiated, as we see Pilate putting up the sign of INRI over Jesus' cross, much to the embarrassment of the Jewish leaders (Jn 19:22). In effect, Jesus was convicted for allegedly breaking Hebrew laws, but was awarded death sentence under Roman laws. **My question therefore, is**: Under the laws of which regime was Jesus sentenced to death on the cross? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In Luke 22:44 we read how Jesus sweat blood during his prayer at Gethsemane. This happens when one goes through extreme stress and mental agony. Da Vinci is said to have recorded the phenomenon that happened with soldiers prior to fierce battles. Now, we find the human nature of Jesus in dominance in all other stages of the Passion -- right from his trial, through the flogging and crowning, on his path to Calvary where he falls under the weight of the cross and to his loud cry of agony at the moment of death. But in the garden we see him having a frame by frame fore-view of all the suffering that was on the way. Ordinary persons awaiting execution, even through the most cruel methods, are not known to have sweat blood. Thus, it was the human nature in Jesus that sweat blood, while his divine nature had set the stage for it. **My question therefore is**: Was the divine nature of Jesus in dominance at the Garden of Gethsemane? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In Matthew 27:29 we read: "..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns?

We read in Matt 26:36-39 (NRSVCE) : > Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed... One wonders why Jesus asked his 11 disciples to remain in two different places on his way to the place of prayer in Gethsemane And Peter was carrying a sword ! ( Jn 18:10). Did Jesus anticipate an early arrival of his betrayer and the soldiers, who needed to be warded off till he completed his prayer? Was the arrangement of disciples in two steps i.e. 8 plus 3, intended to reinforce physical security in all his human nature? **My question, therefore is**: According to Catholic teachings, why did Jesus arrange his 11 disciples in two places on the way to his place of prayer in Gethsemane?

We see in Gen 22:13 how Abraham saw a ram caught by the horn in a thicket and sacrificed it in lieu of Isaac. Coming over to New Testament we see Jesus being made to wear a crown of thorns. It is believed that the thorn Jesus wore had been made from the twigs of bush. We see here a strange resemblance. Unfortunately, none of the Evangelists draw a parallel between the ram that Abraham sacrificed and Jesus who offered himself on sacrifice vis a vis the thorny twigs that held on to the heads of both. My question therefore is: Are there any teachings from the side of the Catholic Church, that establish a co-relation between Christ and the ram that Abraham sacrificed?

**Do we know which side of Christ was pierced by the Roman soldier during His Passion?** Have any serious studies been done to determine which side of Christ was pierced by a lance during the Crucifixion of Jesus, immediately after He died on the Cross?

**According to Catholicism, why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?** > > 36 But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. > > 37 For I say to you, that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. > > 38 But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.- [Luke 22:36-38](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=DRA) Have any Church Father or Doctor of the Church offer any insights as to why Our Lord spoke as such? I am rather curious also if the word for ***sword***, could have been the same word used for a dagger? For in such a case, a dagger could in theory also be used as a fork when eating as well as for self defense! In the movie, **The Passion of the Christ**, Peter cuts off the ear of [Malchus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malchus#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Bible%2C%20one,prevent%20the%20arrest%20of%20Jesus.) with what looks more like a dagger in lieu of an actual sword. The Hebrew word **חֶרֶב**: Axe, dagger, knife, mattock, sword, tool for cutting [Strong's Concordance](https://www.quotescosmos.com/bible/bible-concordance/H2719.html#verses)

What is the understanding of the (Assyrian or Ancient) Church of the East on the Passion, considering their unique Christological doctrine? Do they believe that God suffered on the cross?

I wonder whether Jesus was given enough opportunities to defend himself, whether his trial was fair and whether the investigation was thorough. I want to know how it compares with typical criminal, political or treason trials of the time, both in Roman empire and worldwide, and also in comparison with the modern times.

Are the same people that received Jesus with flowers when he entered the city the ones that also condemned him for crucifixion a couple of days later? Every single preacher I've heard suggested they were the same, but other sources depict the judgement given in Pilate's courtyard as done in a rush with many men "planted" by the priests. After the judgement was given, none of Jesus' followers, no matter how many, could stand the Romans fulfilling their order. Are there any references that encourage any of these views or maybe some other perspective?

We read in [John 12: 20-24 (NRSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012&version=NRSVCE) : >Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. One is intrigued by the reference Jesus makes to his ensuing Passion and Glorification in answer to the visit of the Greeks and their request for a rendezvous with the Lord. My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, why did Jesus relate His ensuing Passion and Glorification to the visit of the Greek?

I was reading from this Wikipedia article that the name of the centurion officer who pierced Jesus with a 3-foot pike on the left rib was **Longinus** and that his words "**Truly this man was the son of God**" were said after the blood and water coming out of the pierced rib cured him of his eye infection and that he later converted. Is this true?

Luke 22:15-20 is clear that the cross yet lay ahead of Christ. Then he said, "This is my body which is given for you… This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you”, commanding them to eat and drink. Did the bread which he broke, speaking of his broken body, and the wine to be drunk, speaking of his shed blood, mean something to the disciples different to their view of those emblems after Jesus’ resurrection, once they started to do that in remembrance of him? Obviously, Jesus HAD to institute that Supper before he died! And Greek tenses may allow for past or present tense to underscore the assurance of what would happen. But on that evening, their partaking of that bread and that wine could never have struck them as being a literal partaking of the actual body and blood of Christ. For clarity, I am NOT wanting any examination of whether the Last Supper was, technically, the First Supper of a new event for Christians (as opposed to being connected to the Passover seder for Jews). Nor am I wanting comments about which cup was used, when. Those matters are dealt with in existing Stack questions. A similar question to mine is here, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61541/lutheran-response-to-non-literalist-interpretation-of-the-lords-supper *‘What is the Lutheran response to the argument made by some, that Christ couldn't have meant "this is my body" in a literal sense, since he was himself bodily present in the midst of the disciples, in the same upper room, as distinct from the elements?’* The only answer given, from the Marburg Colloquy, 1529, was not helpful. I am not looking exclusively for the Lutheran response, but for views from all Christians who partake of those emblems themselves within the general fold of Protestantism. This would exclude all who do not partake of the bread and wine passed around at this event. I am not looking for the Catholic view either, not yet, as I may frame another question for them after I have had responses to this one. My question seeks insights into believers partaking of the bread and wine prior to Jesus’ body being broken and his blood being shed. This only happened once in history and I am not aware of any comments from those few as to how they understood it, compared with how they came to understand it the second time (and thereafter, down the centuries). Now, it could be that there are some ancient Catholic sources that would shed a little light on my question, so I do not preclude those being quoted by Protestants; I just don’t want answers extolling (or disagreeing with) either Catholic or Protestant views of what the emblems came to mean after that ‘First Supper’. My focus is entirely on that ‘First Supper’. So, please help me with a matter that is very narrowly focused, even if the range of answers can come from a very broad school indeed!

St. Thomas Aquinas never wrote a complete treatise devoted solely to Christ's passion. So what did St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about Christ's passion?