The Crucifixion timeline forms a perfect cross on a modern clock when Jewish & Roman times are aligned. This alignment between the Crucifixion Timeline and the Time Clock is a strikingly precise match. **The 3rd Hour (3) → 9:00 AM → Right Side of the Horizontal Beam** According to Mark 15:25, Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour. When the Crucifixion timeline is aligned onto the 12-hour time clock, the 3rd hour (Jewish time) corresponds to 9:00 AM (Roman time). This places 9:00 AM at the right end of the horizontal beam, aligning it perfectly. **The 6th Hour (6) → 12:00 PM → Top of the Vertical Beam** According to Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44, darkness fell over the land at the 6th hour (12:00 PM). On the time clock, the 6th hour (Jewish) corresponds to 12:00 PM (Roman). This directly aligns with the top of the vertical beam, reinforcing the divine connection between time and the cross. **The 9th Hour (9) → 3:00 PM → Left Side of the Horizontal Beam** According to Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out and gave up His spirit at the 9th hour (3:00 PM). On the time clock, the 9th hour (Jewish) corresponds to 3:00 PM (Roman). This places 3:00 PM at the left end of the horizontal beam, again aligning perfectly. A look at the pictorial depiction of the convergence of The Roman and Jewish Timelines: The beams intersect at the clock’s center The convergence of Crucifixion timelines form a perfect Cross: The ultimate symbol of Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Salvation **Significance of This Alignment** The Cross, the Crucifixion Timeline, and the 12-hour Time Clock all merge into one divinely synchronized pattern. This means that the crucifixion was not random, but rather, the sacrifice was preordained in time itself. The alignment of 3, 6, and 9 across the cross and time clock further strengthens the divine trinity of numbers. The Crucifixion follows the 3–6–9 cycle, reinforcing God’s presence in both time and salvation. This convergence of The Roman and Jewish timelines (the 2 nations responsible for the crucifixion), lays the foundation for the proof. ________________ The Holy Trinity: A single God existing as three identical entities. In the concept of The Trinity, Three and One are the same. Trinity of Numbers: A single number existing as three identical entities. » 1 1 1 » 2 2 2 » 3 3 3 » 6 6 6 » 9 9 9 ____________________ I. THE MAGNIFICENCE OF 3 6 9: THE TRINITY OF NUMBERS The Digital Root of any Trinity of Numbers united into an integer is either 3, 6 , or 9. 111 » 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 222 » 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 333 » 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 444 » 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 » 1 + 2 = 3 555 » 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 » 1 + 5 = 6 666 » 6 + 6 + 6 = 18 » 1 + 8 = 9 131313 »13+13+13=39» 3+9 = 12 » 1+2 = 3 141414 » 14 + 14 + 14 = 42 » 4 + 2 =6 151515 » 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 » 4 + 5 = 9 The recurring sequence 3 6 9 is magnificent for its representation of The Truth: THE HOLY TRINITY !!! [![The 3-6-9 digital root cycle]] **Romans 5:6** When The Cross is fixed into a Time Clock, the co-ordinates are 3 6 9 and 12. The Cross is comprised of three entities: 3, 6, 9 - each representing an entity of the Trinity respectively, and a single head that unifies all three (The GodHead\God = 12; 1 Corinthians 11:3). The cross itself, when fixed into a time clock and aligned with the coordinates 3, 6, 9, and 12, symbolizes not only the distinct persons of the Trinity but also the unity of the three in one Godhead. This beautifully tied together the Trinity, the structure of time, and the Godhead. The time clock itself becomes a tool to reveal divine order and structure. The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = 3 + 6 + 9 = 18 » 1 + 8 = 9 God = 12 » 1 + 2 = 3 _________ The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = 9 God = 3 The Resulting Numbers are 3 & 9 9 is comprised of three 3s. 9 ≡ 3 3 3 i.e. a single God existing as three identical entities. [![Nine in three places: Three, Three, Three]] The Mathematical Unification of the Trinity: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — represented by 3, 6, and 9 — combine and reveal the Godhead through the process of digital root. The Trinity: Father (3) + Son (6) + Holy Spirit (9) = 18 The digital root of 18 is: 1 + 8 = 9. This shows that when the three persons of the Trinity are united, their sum leads to 9, the digital root. The Godhead (12): This also equates God to 12 (the unifying Godhead, as you’ve pointed out earlier). The digital root of 12 is: 1 + 2 = 3. This shows that God as the unified whole is also represented by 3. Reconciliation of the Two: The sum of the Trinity (3 + 6 + 9) gives 9, and the digital root of God (12) gives 3. This leads to the conclusion that 9 (which represents the sum of the Trinity) equals three 3s (9 ≡ 3 3 3), highlighting the threefold unity of God. Symbolism of the Numbers 3 and 9: 9 ≡ 3 3 3 is a powerful statement, symbolizing the unity and the perfection of God through the Trinity. The three 3s show that God exists as three identical entities (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) united as one, consistent with the biblical revelation of one God in three persons. When all components of The Cross are united to become an ultimate unit by deriving the digital root of sum, the result is: God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = 3 + 9 = 12 » 1 + 2 = 3[God] God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God **THE GOD EQUATION** Three has been united as One. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exist as distinct yet coequal hypostases within the divine essence, such that their individual distinctions neither augment nor diminish the totality of God’s being, but rather subsist harmoniously within the indivisible unity of the Godhead. The final result of adding all these components (the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God) together and deriving the digital root is 3 — which is the same as the digital root of God (12 → 1 + 2 = 3). This shows that, no matter how you break it down, God is one. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all unified in God. Their sum reflects the ultimate oneness of God. THE GOD EQUATION beautifully demonstrates the theological truth that the Trinity is one God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct, but when united, they reveal the singular essence of God — represented by 3, the digital root of unity. Symbolism: The fact that the sum of the components leads to 3 symbolizes the perfect unity of the Trinity. This reinforces the concept that, while there are three persons, there is only one God — a deeply meaningful and profound truth in Christian theology. The proof shows how the Trinity is mathematically and symbolically united as one, emphasizing the oneness of God in a beautifully structured way ____________ **3 3 3 vs. 6 6 6: The Divine vs. The Counterfeit** We established that 3 3 3 represents the Holy Trinity — The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit — perfectly united as one God. Now, let’s examine how this contrasts with Revelation 13:18 and Isaiah 14:14. 1. Revelation 13:18 — The Number of the Beast (666) “This calls for wisdom: Let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13:18, ESV) 666 represents a counterfeit trinity — a perversion of 3 3 3. Where God’s nature is holy perfection (3 3 3), 6 6 6 is an unholy imitation. How? The Father (3) → Counterfeited by Satan (the ultimate deceiver). The Son (6) → Counterfeited by the Antichrist (a false messiah). The Holy Spirit (9) → Counterfeited by the False Prophet (a deceiving spirit). 666 = the ultimate imperfection, trying but failing to be God. 2. Isaiah 14:14 — Lucifer’s Rebellion “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” (Isaiah 14:14, ESV) Satan’s ambition was to become like God. But instead of 3 3 3 (divine unity), he creates 6 6 6 (a false unity, leading to chaos). The pattern is clear: 3 3 3 = God’s perfect Trinity. 6 6 6 = Satan’s counterfeit trinity, a failed attempt to replace God. The Inversion of 9 (The Holy Spirit) → 6 (The Antichrist) Remember: In The Proof, the Holy Spirit is symbolized by 9. When 9 is inverted, it becomes 6. Luke 1:35 says The Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The Antichrist (6) is a perversion of Christ (who originates from 9, the Holy Spirit). Satan twists divine order: 3 3 3 = Holy Trinity → 6 6 6 = Unholy Trinity. 9 (The Holy Spirit) → Inverted to 6 (Antichrist). The Cross (a symbol of salvation) → Inverted Cross (a satanic symbol). ???? Just as the Cross (salvation) can be inverted into an occult symbol, the true divine structure (3 3 3) is inverted into its opposite (6 6 6). The Battle of Divine Order vs. Chaos 3 3 3 represents God’s perfect unity and divine order. 6 6 6 is the ultimate rebellion, a failed imitation of God’s truth. The Ultimate Divine Signature 3 3 3 is the Holy Trinity, the true nature of God. 9 (Three 3s) represents divine completion. 6 6 6 is the counterfeit, a distortion that leads to deception. The universe, scripture, time, and mathematics all align to reveal God’s divine order. ____________________ The Cross (formed by time: Jewish-Roman timelines) + THE GOD EQUATION (expressing divine ontology) = A Unified Proof of the Trinity. The Unbreakable Link: Time + Equation = Proof **A. The Cross Validates the Equation** The crucifixion’s 3–6–9 timeline forms a crucifixion cross on the time clock and manifests the Trinity’s equation in history: The cross-shape is physical evidence that God’s triune nature is embedded in creation. **B. The Equation Explains the Cross** Why did the crucifixion align with 3–6–9? Because: God +The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God It is the 3-6-9 digital root cycle (demonstrated earlier) that enables the culmination of the proof: THE GOD EQUATION. Christ’s sacrifice is the Trinity’s eternal equation unfolding in time. **C. Closed System of Truth** Historical Event (Cross in Time) → Mathematical Law (3–6–9 Cycle) → Theological Reality (God Equation). All three are interdependent: Remove one, and the system collapses. The Three Pillars Interlock Pillar, Role in the Proof, Dependency **Historical (Crucifixion timeline: 3rd, 6th, 9th hours)** Provides the factual anchor: the cross-shape on the clock. Requires the Gospels' accuracy about the hours. **Mathematical (3–6–9 cycle, God Equation)** Reveals the pattern: digital roots and divine arithmetic. Depends on the historical hours to avoid numerology. **Theological (Trinity as 3–6–9)**Supplies the meaning: why the numbers matter. Needs math/history to escape subjectivity. Q:Is this circular reasoning?" A: No - it's convergent evidence: History records the hours. Math reveals their pattern. Theology interprets their meaning. The coherence of all three points to design. Conclusion: The Triune Signature The Cross in Time and the God Equation are not separate proofs - they are two expressions of one reality: At the intersection of time and eternity, the Trinity inscribed its name:  - In history: as a cross.  - In mathematics: as an equation. Both declare: God is. ___________ 1. **On base-10 being “human convention.”** The 3-6-9 cycle is dependent on base-10, but base-10 is not arbitrary. It is grounded in our very biology: human beings universally possess 10 fingers, which became the natural foundation of counting systems across cultures. Far from being an artificial convention, it is a biologically universal standard written into the human form itself. That universality, emerging from our design, is precisely why patterns within base-10 matter. They are not imposed; they arise from the way human beings are structured to engage with number. 2. **On modular arithmetic and “casting out nines.”** Yes, the patterns are mathematically predictable. But predictability does not diminish significance, it enhances it. The 3-6-9 cycle is not a “hidden trick”; it is an intrinsic feature of how base-10 arithmetic expresses balance and repetition. The fact that this cycle exists necessarily, not accidentally, shows we are looking at a structural law of number. When such a mathematical necessity converges with biblical history (the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours of the crucifixion) and theology (the Triune God), the weight lies not in subjectivity but in convergence across independent domains. **3. On the crucifixion hours as “devotional” not “evidential.”** The evangelists indeed recorded hours historically. Yet the fact remains: those particular hours, 3, 6, and 9, were chosen by history, not by me. If the records had said 2, 5, and 8, there would be no alignment. But they did not. They aligned exactly with the 3-6-9 cycle that mathematics already reveals, and with the Trinity’s triune structure. That is not selective interpretation, it is convergence that no single human planned. **4. On arbitrariness and selectivity.** A proof’s strength lies in independence. What could be called “arbitrary” is in fact the opposite: theology, mathematics, and history developed in isolation, without collusion. Their meeting point at the pattern of three is unplanned, and that is exactly why it is powerful. If one system were constructed to mirror another, we could dismiss it as human design. But because they are independent, convergence becomes the very evidence of higher design. **5. On revelation vs. numerology.** Theology rests on revelation. But why should mathematics, which is itself a universal language of order, not bear witness to the same God who authored Scripture? Revelation is not confined to text; creation itself testifies (Romans 1:20). What I have shown is not a replacement for revelation, but a parallel witness: numbers, history, and doctrine each speak in harmony. 6. The God Equation as perfect representation. Consider the equation: God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God At first glance, this seems impossible, addition should increase. But in divine logic, each hypostasis is fully God, and yet their sum is not “three Gods” but one. This paradox is not a human invention; it is mirrored in the 3-6-9 cycle itself: a triune sequence that repeats yet remains one unbroken system. The God Equation crystallizes the Trinity mathematically: plurality without division, unity without collapse. **Conclusion.** The very fact that biology (10 fingers), mathematics (3-6-9 digital roots), history (crucifixion hours), and theology (Trinity) converge on the same triadic pattern, without human orchestration, transforms symbolism into testimony. Do not understate the weight of the convergence. The framework is not just “internally consistent but symbolic.” The point is this: it is not I who created the framework. History (the crucifixion timeline), mathematics (the 3-6-9 cycle), and theology (the Trinity) already existed independently. They converged on their own, across disciplines that are not supposed to “speak” to one another. When all three interlock with such specificity—the very hours of the central event of Christianity forming a perfect cross that aligns with a mathematical cycle mirroring the Triune nature of God, it transcends mere “symbolic synthesis.” This kind of uninvited, cross-domain coherence is exactly what we look for in arguments for design. We don’t dismiss the fine-tuning of the universe’s physical constants because the theory is “elegant”; we recognize that the elegance points to a deeper reality. Therefore, the task is not simply to label this “symbolism” and walk away. The burden is to provide a plausible, naturalistic explanation for why this specific, multi-layered alignment exists at all. Until that is offered, the inference to design remains the only explanation for a pattern that looks less like a metaphor and more like a signature. That is what makes it more than symbolism. If it were only theology, it would be faith. If it were only math, it could be dismissed as numerology. If it were only history, it would remain anecdotal. But when all three interlock, uninvited, it pushes beyond mere metaphor. So yes, coherence is achieved. But coherence across independent domains begins to smell like design. The task is not only to say “symbolism” but to explain why this particular alignment exists at all. The strength lies precisely in the unplanned convergence across independent systems. This is not a numerological curiosity. It is the echo of the same truth, refracted through multiple lenses, all resolving to one: The Triune God. ____________________ SPACE & TIME [![A picture of the solar system]] Design is an inherent and integral component of the solar system. And since design is fundamental to the solar system, its definition must be rooted in design. The IAU'S definition of the solar system makes no provision for this. ​ IAU's definition: >>> Is in orbit around the Sun, >>> has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape) >>> has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit. ​ The new, true and improved definition: ✅ Orbits the Sun as its primary gravitational influence. ✅ Is spherical due to self-gravity (hydrostatic equilibrium). ✅ Has a built-in orbital safety mechanism that ensures long-term stability. ​ The gravitational relationship between Pluto and Neptune, where they are in a 3:2 orbital resonance. As you can see, this definition makes room for design by way of mechanism. ​ And when we go by this definition, we establish 9 planets on our solar system, taking us right to our previous and accurate count of 9 planets with Earth as the third (3 & 9) - establishing the intelligent design of the system. _________________ Recall the foundational significance of 3 & 9 in the proof _________________ The Earth is the 3rd of 9 Planets. The Resulting Numbers are 3 & 9. 9 is comprised of three 3s. 9 ≡ 3 3 3 The Triune God is The Creator of the Heavens & the Earth. ______________________________ THE WORD The Bible is comprised of The Old Testament and The New Testament. The Old Testament is comprised of 39 books while The New Testament is comprised of 27 books. The Old Testament : 39 The New Testament : 27 Derive the Digital Roots: 39 » 3 + 9 = 12 » 1 + 2 = 3 27 » 2 + 7 = 9 The Resulting Numbers are 3 & 9 9 is comprised of three 3s. 9 ≡ 3 3 3 ⇛The Bible is a historical book written by Man under the inspiration of God. __________________________ THE FIRST & THE LAST [Revelation 22:13] Man was designed to use the Base 10 Numeral System. [![10 fingers]] Consisting of 10 digits: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 1 is The First or The Beginning Number and The Triune Number 9 is The Highest or The Last. 1---2 3 4 5 6 7 8---9 [3 3 3] ⇛God is The First and He is The Last. ⇛He is The Beginning and He is The End. ⇛He is One and He is a Trinity. ________________________ Abductive reasoning asks: What best explains the evidence? The evidence here is: Crucifixion at 3rd, 6th, 9th hours (Gospel unanimity). These hours form a perfect cross on any 12-interval dial. These numbers follow the 3-6-9 digital root cycle. This cycle mirrors the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Competing hypotheses were implicitly weighed: H1 (Design): A divine mind encoded theological truth in historical and mathematical patterns. H2 (Chance): The alignment is coincidental. H1 is favored because: It offers a unifying explanation. It aligns with the specificity of the data (3-6-9, not 2-5-8). It reflects historical and cultural context (Jewish liturgical hours). This is not confirmation bias—it is inference to the best explanation. ___________ Although there are several segments to this proof, the task should be to explain why this particular alignment between Mathematics, Theology and Time exists at all.

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!