Saving Jesus

[OutwiththeOutCrowd]

The more I think about the story of the death of Jesus on the cross, the more I feel I want to go back in a time machine and beg him not to go through with it. From what I understand, and assuming for the moment that the story is true, Jesus could have found a way out, but felt it was the will of God and his destiny to allow events to play out without his resistance.

I just wonder, though, if Jesus (and God?) could, in principle, have been persuaded to change his mind on the matter if enough people had understood in advance the fatalism of his thinking and pleaded with him not to do it on their account?

Would there have been a way to convince him that he didn’t have to fulfil prophecies, nor save us from our sins?

You see, my personal feeling is that, if I am intrinsically unworthy of heaven, and ‘boosted’ into the possibility of experiencing it only through the sacrifice of Jesus, I would rather accept that death is the end and have Jesus escape crucifixion. If suffering of an innocent being is the price to be paid for heaven, then I would prefer to give up on such a heaven and take the rap for my own sins.

Am I alone in feeling this way? I really don't think I can be.

Had Jesus lived longer, he would probably have found time to write his memoirs, providing a record of his teachings in a form we could be confident he was happy with. We would not have to worry about the inerrancy, or otherwise, of the New Testament. If he had wanted to start a church, he could have been specific about his intentions for it.

Moreover, there would have been more time for his influence as a teacher to spread and for his life to be documented by the writers of the day in such a way that his very existence wouldn’t be in question. While we wouldn’t have an afterlife in heaven to look forward to, the writings of Jesus would illuminate our path in the life we do have. (I am assuming no afterlife, but if it had to be hell, at least it would be hell with a conscience unburdened by the thought of having been complicit in the suffering of Jesus.)

I know it’s not really possible to change the past, and many will think me bonkers and/or naive for thinking about changing the history of Christianity, but who would come with me in my time machine to try to save Jesus?

The Christian Faith is more specific, it does not include belief in just whatever we happen to believe - it is more disciplined.

But it isn't. It's very wide ranging and undisciplined. It goes from the Westboro Baptist Church to West African child sacrifice to jam making for church fêtes in middle England. With every type of Christian claiming all the other Christians aren't true Christians.

It is undeniable that there are divisions within the church and it is quite right that the behaviour of certain 'churches' is questioned because I believe the overriding message of Christ is one of love, specifically.

Mark 12:28-32 says,

"28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:" (KJV)

1 Corinthians 13, again, stresses the importance of love,

"13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." (NIV)

Tbh the importance of love is stressed again and gain, through Christ, in the New Testament and Christians are supposed to believe in Him and follow Him, do His works.

However church unity is also sought Ephesians 4 says,

"Unity and Maturity in the Body of Christ
4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (NIV)

So the Christian church certainly is not perfect or completely unified, but, IMO, that does not mean we should just give up, rather we should seek to improve by becoming more Christ like and more loving.

And that's how it works, people cherry pick, as you have, the bits that suit their particular agenda.

Someone else can cherry pick passages promoting murdering homosexuals, marrying off their daughter to her rapist for 50 shekles and a goat, slavery, genocide, stoning adulterers etc.

I seem to recall in Ezeikiel, there's a lovely passage about a woman imagining herself fucking a horse!

And we teach this to kids!!!! (not horse fucking specifically, but the bible in general)

So, according to your own reasoning, my own 'agenda' would simply be to follow Christ, in love. It is what I believe true Christianity is. Do you disagree with this, 'agenda' TTWK?

I disagree with cherry picking bits of the bible you like and putting your fingers in your ears regards the rest of it. The bible is meant to be the word of god. It either stands of falls on its whole merit. Hopefully for most rational thinking people, it falls.

TTWK I don't believe in 'cherry picking' either. However I do believe the Bible has to be read holistically and contextually. There have been plenty of threads which go into great detail on this subject. Narrative cannot be divorced from the context it is written in if a true understanding is to be gained, in my opinion. Added to this I believe Christ and what He stood for and He believed in God and referred to scripture.

Why are you 'hopefully' believing the Bible 'falls'? Does that not indicate bias? Why are you sure and hopefully your (negative) interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Yes, I hope it falls because I don't believe god created man, but in fact man created god. And man created god in his own image; jealous, violent, homophobic and sexist.

TTWK So, by your own admission, your perspective is affected by your own 'belief'.

By the way, you may or may not be pleased to know, I don't believe your interpretation of God is correct, I know what aspects of the Bible you refer to but I believe they belong firmly in their context, to me God is loving. The God I worship is a loving God.

From your perspective I suppose you believe I have 'created' a loving god myself but hey, I'd rather have a loving God than anything else. Added to this you could say a god is a subconscious culmination of all our values, what we view as vitally important. So even atheists can have god(s) in all but name....

I'd rather have a loving God than anything else.

You should try no god at all. That's even better.

Added to this you could say a god is a subconscious culmination of all our values, what we view as vitally important

No, that's morals.

No, that's morals.

But, as Shakespeare said,

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

One of the definitions of a god in the OED is,
"3.1A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god:
don’t make money your god"
Which would fit with the point I made above.

Morals refer to standards of behaviour / principles, which is connected, inevitably, to what is valued / held important.

"(morals) Standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong:
the corruption of public morals
they believe addicts have no morals and cannot be trusted" (OED)

So why the 'no'?

Sorry Head it was wrong of me to speculate about your character/motives. I didn't engage with your arguments because I believe you are entitled to believe what you want to believe, and I haven't personally found engaging with those of a differing belief structure on these sorts of threads beneficial in the past. I'm sorry that your experience with faith wasn't great for you. I'm glad that you have made a choice you are happier with.