What is the meaning of “smrt?”

This posting arises from comments made by Erik Hallendorf in response to the article, ‘Je li Isus doista umro?‘ For the sake of completeness, I’ll begin with his original post…

Erik Hallendorf

Uzmimo biblijske izvještaje i uobičajena kršćanska tumačenja izvještaja o Isusovoj smrti kao datost. These include that Jesus’ body was horribly mutilated and died a relatively quick death.

Pod smrću mislimo da nema aktivnosti mozga i srca.

Uzmimo također priču o uskrsnuću kao datu, tj. nakon toga je ponovno bio živ 3 dana, noseći samo tragove proboda na bokovima, stopala i ruke, ali se potpuno oporavio od strašnih rana. Budući da mrtvo tijelo ne može imati nikakvu sposobnost iscjeljivanja, moramo uzeti da se Isus ponovno pojavio u novom tijelu ili čudesno ozdravljenom tijelu, osim nekih maraka da uvjeri one koji sumnjaju.
U svjetlu gore navedenih prihvaćenih kršćanskih vjerovanja o Isusu, Volio bih pitati: U kojem smislu je Isus stvarno umro?

Dopustite mi da modificiram gornju definiciju smrti na sasvim razuman način:

Pod smrću mislimo da nema moždane aktivnosti i nema funkcije srca kao trajnog stanja. Drugim riječima, najosnovnije razumijevanje smrti je da ona predstavlja trajni kraj života. Jesus “death” does not satisfy this understanding of death simply because there is no permanence. Christian doctrine is at pains to prove that his “death” was only temporary, i pritom, daje odgovor na pitanje, je li Isus stvarno umro? Jasno je da nije.

Ne trebamo raspravljati o tome je li se jednostavno onesvijestio ili se onesvijestio, ili jesu li mu srce i mozak zapravo stali, je li bio klinički mrtav ili nije za 3 dana. Sve to postaje nebitno.

Toliko se govori o konačnoj Isusovoj žrtvi. Kada uopće nije bilo ultimativno. Pogotovo jer je unaprijed znao da će otići samo zbog njega 3 dana. He knew before he “died” he would be “undead” in the blink of an eye.

Evo na što se to svodi. Kad biste mi ponudili dogovor koji bi mi omogućio da zauvijek osiguram svjetski mir, i sve što trebam učiniti je biti pogubljen (stvarno), ostati mrtav za 3 dana, a zatim nekim čudesnim mehanizmom, što mi je zajamčeno, Vratio bih se živjeti bez ikakvih posljedica mog pogubljenja, Prihvatio bih to bez pitanja. Nema nikakve žrtve da prespavate samo jedan vikend, pogotovo ako zauvijek nakon mog velikog sna svima bude dan kao dugi vikend za sjećanje na moju veliku ne-žrtvu.

Poanta: In what way does Jesus “death” satisfy the basic definition of a permanent ceasing of life? Prema vlastitim navodima, najvažnija kršćanska doktrina ujedno je i njezina najveća prijevara. Istinitije bi bilo reći: “Nakon stravične torture dio dana, Isus je umro za pravedno 3 dana za svoje grijehe, ali je zatim ponovno učinjen nemrtvim kao što je i znao, potpuno zacijelio osim nekih tragova koji pokazuju da je bio mučen. Žrtvovao se 3 dana njegova života za vas. Sada za njega treba dati cijeli život”.

admin says:

bok, Erik!

Hvala na vašim komentarima. Primjećujem da ste prilično voljni prihvatiti glavnu tvrdnju o povijesnosti evanđeoskih izvještaja o Isusu’ smrt i uskrsnuće. Ali vaša je poenta vrlo zanimljiva na koju ću ovdje vrlo kratko odgovoriti: ali za koji mislim da zaslužuje puno potpuniju raspravu na drugom mjestu. Ako se ne protivite, Želio bih reproducirati vašu poruku i ponuditi potpuniji odgovor negdje drugdje na ovoj stranici u vrlo bliskoj budućnosti. hoću, naravno, poslati ti link kad to učinim.

Ukratko, ako jednom prigrlite premisu da smrt 'predstavlja trajni kraj života’ onda tvoj argument ima smisla. Doista, da je istina ne samo ja, ali svaki kršćanin koji je ikada živio jest, riječima sv. Pavao, ‘najviše za žaljenje’ (1 Corinthians 15:19). Ali jedno od temeljnih kršćanskih učenja je da to nije tako.

Ali tu postoje puno veći problemi. Ako smrt nije trajni kraj života, što je? I koja je bila stvarna priroda i svrha Isusa’ pati? Htio bih o tome opširnije razgovarati kasnije.

Erik Hallendorf

Lijep pozdrav i hvala na odgovoru. Drago mi je da niste pokušali brzo odgovoriti jer pitanje doista zahtijeva odmjeren odgovor i više sam nego sretan što možete postaviti pitanje negdje drugdje. Predstavlja zagonetku, zar ne?

U kršćanskom smislu, smrt znači trajni kraj života na zemlji i istovremeni početak zagrobnog života, ili, novi život u drugačijem obliku.

– Isusova smrt nije bila trajni kraj života na zemlji … pa što je bilo njegovo “smrt” zatim?

– Isus je znao da će biti “nemrtvih” nakon 3 dana, pa što to čini konceptu “krajnja žrtva”. I u kojem smislu uopće postoji ikakva žrtva kada je znao da će se potpuno ponovno ujediniti sa svojim ocem na nebu nakon uzašašća, ovaj put bez tereta ljudskog oblika?

– Primijetio sam tendenciju među evanđelistima da prikazuju Isusa’ patnje u vrlo slikovitim terminima, gdje postaje očito da su motivirani potrebom da pokažu Isusa’ fizička patnja bila je daleko veća nego što ju je ikada iskusio bilo koji čovjek prije i iskusit će je bilo koji čovjek u budućnosti. Je li to doista ključni zahtjev? Ako ne, zašto onda toliko praviti njegovu patnju? Ako da, tada bi se činilo teško poduprijeti se pred dokazima o daleko ekstremnijoj individualnoj patnji tijekom duljih vremenskih razdoblja u rukama sadističkih mučitelja, diktatori, ratni huškači, genocidni manijaci, bolesti itd.

Ovo su kritična pitanja jer kršćanstvo gleda na Patnju, Smrt i uskrsnuće kao kamen temeljac njegove vjere, bez kojega uopće nema ničeg značajnog.

Trebao bih naglasiti da nisam zainteresiran za odgovore na ova pitanja ni u jednom slučaju; Zanima me samo integritet svakog prezentiranog argumenta.

My response:

Apologies for the delay responding: but I’ve been working to a deadline on a job and only just finished… But I felt it necessary to try and present an overview of the issue to avoid getting bogged down in details.

The issue I think we need to address first is what Christians believe about life and death: and I’d better start by pointing out that there were 2 differing viewpoints amongst the Jews of Jesus’ day. The Sadducees, whilst believing in God, did not believe in life after death: whereas the Pharisees believed both in a spiritual world beyond our normal perceptions and that man would somehow enter that realm when their current mortal life ended. Tako, even in Jesus’ day, many were in doubt about this subject. Ali, despite his disagreement with the Pharisees on many other issues, Isus (and his disciples) always came down firmly on their side in this respect (c.f. Mt 22:23-32 & Acts 23:6-9).

The question of what life after death is like is a complex one, on which Christians do not necessarily entirely agree. But it is much easier to establish a few basic facts about death. Let us start with the very first biblical reference to human death – the story of Adam and Eve. Jesus himself cited this account when arguing the biblical case against divorce (Mt 19:3-8); so we know he took it very seriously. God had warned Adam, ‘… in the day you eat of [the forbidden fruit] you will surely die’ (Gen 2:17). Now Adam did not die physically until many, many years later: yet something very important did happen immediately: he was barred from the Garden of Eden and the ‘Tree of Life,’ to which he formerly had free access. So the death that Adam suffered was first and foremost relational – cut off from the presence and life of God. Physical death and decay was an eventual by-product.

Even today, people do not normally immediately cease to exist when they die. The entire body and organs remain, and may be medically resuscitated before too much decay has occurred. But at death communication with the corpse ceases and our previous relationship with the person is abruptly ended.

Tako, what I am saying is that, if you want to understand what is really meant by death and resurrection in Biblical terminology, you need to start thinking more in terms of communication and relationships than modern clinical definitions. This perspective is critical to a full understanding of the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion.

The primary problem Jesus came to address was the alienation of man from God. This had resulted in a number of secondary problems:

• Loss of understanding about the character of God

• Loss of understanding about our own place and purpose in the Universe,

• Moral degradation. (Every child is now born in a corrupted environment which begins making its impressions on their character before they even know it.) The most serious aspect of this is pride and self-centredness (the very opposite of love).

• Guilt and shame arising from hurts which we have (with varying degrees of intent) inflicted on others.

• Disease, decay and, ultimately, physical death.

• Doubt and fear about what might await us after death.

As you examine the ministry of Jesus, you will see how he addresses himself to all of the above issues in people’s lives; claiming to be able to provide, not just a philosophical bandage, but an actual cure.

But there was a secondary problem: justice. And it wasn’t simply an issue of God having been wronged by man’s rebellion. That was an issue too: since mankind had openly rebelled against God in spite of His warnings about the consequences. So if He just said, ‘Forget the consequences,’ that would make Him a liar. But there were also two other groups involved in this. Mankind was one of them. People who have been hurt by others often demand retribution or recompense: and God, who is the moral source of all justice, will not simply ignore that claim.

But the third party is a claimant far more subtle and far less open to doing deals. Man is not the only sentient being with powers of choice. Satan, one of the most powerful of these (though puny in comparison to God) had demanded independence and been expelled from God’s presence in a fall far greater than that of Adam. It was he who had sown mistrust in the minds of Adam and Eve. His goal was simple: to establish a legal claim to the human race and the world they had been given to control; taking the human race hostage to secure a place for himself.

Now the old adage says, ‘Justice must not only be done: it must be seen to be done.’ To Satan, it seemed he had God over a barrel, morally speaking. God had given man authority over the entire planet. But by obeying Satan’s suggestions, rather than God’s, man had unwittingly but voluntarily made himself Satan’s servant: so now Satan, not man, was the legal master of earth and all its inhabitants (c.f. Lk 4:5-7).

One further point: your understanding of God, the Universe, eternity and Jesus himself are far too small. We will see why this is so important shortly.

Now, as to your specific questions…

Isusova smrt nije bila trajni kraj života na zemlji … pa što je bilo njegovo “smrt” zatim?

Isus’ death and resurrection was both a demonstration and a sacrificial gift far greater than we can ever properly conceive.

• By physically resurrecting the dead body of Jesus, it showed us that there is life on the other side of death.

• It demonstrates that Jesus, uniquely amongst all the world’s religious leaders, was who he claimed to be, knew exactly what he was talking about and had the ultimate power to put his words into effect.

• It demonstrates the astonishing love of God; that he would do this for those who were, after all, self-centred rebels against His law, with no right to expect anything from Him.

• It established a mechanism that was capable of anulling the legal claim that Satan had established over the human race.

• It paid a price greater than the sum total of all and every claim for justice and recompence for mankind’s wrongdoings that ever has or ever could be laid against us.

I think that the first 3 points are fairly self-explanatory: but now let me enlarge upon the last in relation to your other 2 questions:

Isus je znao da će biti “nemrtvih” nakon 3 dana, pa što to čini konceptu “krajnja žrtva”. …

i …

I have noted a tendency among evangelists … gdje postaje očito da su motivirani potrebom da pokažu Isusa’ physical suffering was far greater than … any human before and … in future. Je li to doista ključni zahtjev?

Da, it is. As the Apostle John puts it, “It is he who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world’s.” (1 Jn 2:2) Most of us are familiar with the old adage, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ If anyone is to pay for the sin of the whole world, then it must mean that their suffering must be greater than the sum total of every single case of the most ‘extreme individual suffering over the ages for extended periods of time at the hands of sadistic torturers, diktatori, ratni huškači, genocidni manijaci, bolesti itd.‘

And that ‘sum total’ is not just massive beyond our ability to conceive. It is potentially infinite: because the effect of our rebellion was to leave us permanently separated from God and hostage to Satan.

I have heard some pretty graphic sermons and watched Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ It’s brutal and gut-wrenching: but in terms of what Jesus actually had to endure it’s not even remotely close. If I could produce a film to attempt to convey what was involved, I think I would start with scenes slowly and graphically displaying the kind of scenes you describe, then gradually accelerate into a rushing kaleidoscope of seemingly never-ending horrors, perhaps ending with that ear-splitting scream of ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’ But nothing could ever come close to the reality of that billions-multiplied mass of agony – particularly as we could only watch it, whereas Jesus had to actually feel it all.

How could this be? If Jesus were just a man, it couldn’t. But Jesus claimed to be God. The apostle John describes him as the One through whom all of creation came into being (Jn 1:1-3 & 14). Opinions may differ as to how much sentience and capacity for pain a fish, or a worm or microbe may have: but most would accept that the greater and more complex the mind, the greater its probable capacity for suffering. How great, zatim, is that of the One who is bigger than the Universe and inhabits eternity? And, whereas you and I can only empathise with another’s pain as, having no direct connection to their mind, we cannot actually feel it; God, who knows our thoughts better than we know ourselves, can and does feel it. (I’ve discussed this at more length in a posting I made on ‘The Connectedness of God’ at http://tbl.liegeman.org/the-connectedness-of-god (now hosted here on this site).)

Ali, given that God is the infinite and eternal creator of all things, how could such vast suffering – even though, from our limited, temporal perspective, it seems to have been only for a finite period of our time – not be a full and sufficient settlement for all the debts we owe?