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?

I'll come back, I promise, and answer some points, but I'm with a sick chd at the doctor's at the moment.

physical punishment wasn't the point

So why didn't he do it behind closed doors while jesus was laying in bed? Would you ever think it a good idea to use the most physically barbaric act available to make a point to someone, when you wanted people to believe you were loving and good?

head - sure, there isn't consensus, but my 'we' there is in the context of that theological argument, so it is narrowed down. I do know not everyone would want to see it that way.

Some Christians take it all very literally and would be upset by anyone who didn't literally believe all humans are evil and needed Jesus to make them better, but I don't particularly like that argument, so was putting forward a different one. I hope that makes better sense now.

I'm quite sure there is a difference between the two things you mention, but not so clear what your point in making the distinction is? I'd think for many religious people, belief comes first, and after that, some attempt to make (partial) sense of it.

It was barbaric but it was the method of execution at the time, if it had been during the 1500s he probably would have been burned at the stake or decapitated.

He had to fulfil the old testament prophecy, to be an innocent, a lamb, pierced and bruised for the sins of Man. I think there is so much we will never understand, but for him the physical torture, although probably very painful and brutal, wasn't the worst bit.

I am of the opinion and faith that what he di, although we may he good, we can never be perfect in the eyes of God because we have human fallacy, and yes a perfect Gift cannot look on Sin, so when we accept Jesus as our substitute we are covered by his sacrifice and God can let us into his perfect heaven.

I accept that some Christians interpret this differently but that's how I see it based on my reading of the Bible.

*perfect God

What about if he came now to the UK? Who says he needed to die for the sins of man? He makes the rules. it's like me saying I can only forgive my kids for making a mess in their room by pouring bleach down my throat.

Why can't he look on sin? What would happen? So I can do something he can't even do. I can look at someone and say 'you're not perfect but you have a lot of good points lets be friends'

You're trying to impute human causality to something outside that, though.

God is like a human parent. That doesn't mean you can understand everything about theology by analogy to human parenting.

niminy

especially if your encounter with Christianity has been with a form of conservative evangelicalism fixated on penal substitutionary atonement

I might well have this wrong but don't all forms of Christianity hold that Jesus was crucified to save us from our sins? (I ask because out's original question has been on my mind too)

head

It's a sad state of affairs to be looking around you at your fellow man and believe that we all deserve torture and punishment

Is that what you think all Christians believe? Why? I thought we all need forgiveness not punishment.

No but you agree that God thinks we deserve punishment? Or do you disagree with him?

If it was as simple as needing forgiveness then why did Jesus have to die? You said he needed to die so we could be forgiven.

In what way is god like a human parent?

TooBusy, that's a great question. And a hard one. I'll do my best!

So. The theological term for what Jesus accomplished by his death is 'atonement', which is an English coinage from 'at - one - ment'. Through his death Christ brought us together with God, made us 'at one' with him.

Why the need for atonement? Sin is the thing that divides us from God. The importance of sin is not doing naughty things; it's messing up the world we've been given, it's living and acting in ways that divide us from God. Sin's a way of shutting the door in God's face. The more we forget God, the more we forget his ways, the further off we are.

So, like all ancient religions, Judaism was a sacrificial religion. In the Temple, priests would make sacrifices to bring people back to God. One of the key early understandings of what Christ accomplished on the cross is that he made that sacrifice of himself - he was both priest and victim - and it was once for all. It's because of that sacrifice that we can be freely forgiven, again and again and again.

There are different metaphors for understanding how this sacrifice worked.

One is economic -- Christ redeemed us, he paid the price. It's like we're hostages to sin and he bought our freedom. That is the traditional Catholic understanding of atonement.

Another one is judicial -- Christ took the punishment that was meant for us. (This is what is meant by penal substitutionary atonement.) This is a johnny-come-lately, theologically speaking, and has only really become popular since the reformation. It's associated with Calvinism and with conservative evangelicalism. I personally don't have much time for PSA.

But there's another way of understanding what happened at Golgotha, one which has a very ancient pedigree and which pays as much attention to the resurrection as it does to the cross, and that's known as Christus Victor. This says that on the cross Christ defeated death, and made us at one with God in his eternal life. (And sin, as Paul says in Romans, is what keeps us in death.) But the at-one-ment isn't simply pie in the sky when you die, because when the resurrected Jesus walked the earth he brought heaven with him, and we join in that heaven through the sacraments, prayer, living out the gospel and so on. In John's gospel when it talks about God abiding with us, and keeping us in eternal life, that's what it means. It's now and not yet -- on earth as it is in heaven.

That's my 'favourite' atonement theory, but they all have something true to say about what happened.

That's an essay. Phew!

Back from the doctor's btw - child has possible appendicitis so may well have to disappear again pdq!

It was your comparison I was picking up in, I think?

So you don't think he is like a human parent?

Gosh hope it's not appendicitis nimiminy!

I do, but I was responding to your post. Why?

Thanks Niminy, that's really interesting and helpful.

My Dd2 had possible appendicitis last week and it turned out to be common or garden gastroenteritis, bad but not that bad. Hoping and praying yours is too.

Luckily I think we will be spared a trip to hospital! Always best toke sure and he's taking full advantage of the chance to lie on the sofa with the computer.

jeanne how is he like a human parent?

But I was using the analogy to show he is not like any parent we would consider fair or loving or logical.

I am not a Christian and have not studied Christian theology, so I am in no way speaking for Christians, but if sin is a state of being far from God, then by becoming weak, and vulnerable, and humiliated and going through mental and physical torture and feeling cut off from God and actually not being OK, that brings God close to people who are suffering etc in life, thus sort of closing the gap that made it hard for the people who suffered the most to be close to God.

I'm sorry, I'm really confused now.

You used the analogy - which is a common one, right? - and I was trying to say, it's only an analogy. You can't expect it to be perfect. You seem to be agreeing with me on that, but I can't quite follow why it bothers you.

Do you mean, you expected if Christians use the term 'Father' then God would have to be exactly like a human father?

If so, then I think we are back at the issues of humans putting the divine into terms they can begin to understand. We do this, not because it does away with the problem of evil, but to begin to get purchase on one facet of a difficult concept. Or that's how I understand it, anyway.

Sorry Jeanne I am confused now too! Is the analogy you refer to me making about a patent drinking bleach?