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?

That suggestion is so far off the mark it is bordering on being deeply offensive, head.

The only reason I am not offended is that I know you don't know me in real life and also, from your own admission on another thread, that you like arguing.

It is undeniable that psychiatry has a chequered past in the UK. People were committed for social rather than mental health issues and any medical treatment, that is not clinically appropriate, is rightly worrying. It was from this perspective I made my comments.

You equated crucifixion with Sectioning today, you knew I was not referring to historical mental health practices. And it was jesus who believed that mental health was demonic possession.

I'll ask again. Would the price of your sins been paid had Jesus been sectioned in the UK in 2015 and not crucified in Jerusalem 2000 years ago? Would God have been satisfied with that?

I only spoke of sectioning rather than crucifixion in terms of what the likely consequences would be to Jesus' actions in the NT, if He had appeared in our society today.

You are the one asserting Jesus believed a person who had a mental illness was demonically possessed, head. The Bible only mentions the demonic possession and does not connect it with mental illness. Whichever it was, Jesus healed, with no cruel treatment of his 'patient' involved. He simply spoke to Legion.

If Jesus had been sectioned there would be no opportunity for the resurrection - so no I don't think it would have quite the same effect.

But if Jesus were treated as if He had a severe mental illness and was sectioned, this would be a serious situation, even today. Jesus was not insane. The treatment He would receive, if He was treated as such today, would not be clinically appropriate and no one can minimise the seriousness of this.

The same effect

Maybe he could have just died of old age and then came back to life? Why did God send him at a time he knew he would be killed barbarically?

minimise the seriousness

It is no where near as horrific as being nailed to a cross though. If you had to organise your child's death so you could make a show of them being resurrected would you choose something gory and torturous or something as painless/quick as possible.

You wouldn't think it inappropriate for a Dr to assume a patient had an invisible bad guy inhabiting their body?

Who said anything about Drs assuming possession? But if I was suffering, in the same way Legion was, I would rather have someone simply speak to me and be fully healed than go through ECT or be dependent on psychotropic drugs for the rest of my life.

I never said crucifixion was comparable to sectioning in terms of brutality. Just that sectioning and the following treatments are very serious indeed and also worrying if not clinically appropriate.

Of course it would be great if people could be healed of mental health illnesses rather than have to take medication but the inception of psychotropic drugs have made millions of people's lives better and helped them achieve a life that would have previously been impossible. By getting back to being healed by someone talking to you, are you referring to casting demons out? Do you not see the danger in attributing mental health to invisible monsters? If your child started exhibiting delusional and psychotic behaviours do you take them to the church or the Dr. If you could only do one which one would you choose?

head that is an unrealistic choice. Faith healing and medicine are not mutually exclusive. At the severe end of delusion and psychosis there is necessarily a degree of urgency and a doctor would be sought immediately but this would not need to stop anyone praying for the healing of the person suffering and why should it?

And I have spoken to you about the perception of demons / Angels / spirits before (so there should not be need at this stage to repeat numerous past posts), for example they can just describe a bad mood / frame of mind/ thought. They are not necessarily like the depictions in medieval art. You have to look at the functionality of the words within the Bible to understand more of what was spoken about.

Anyway this discussion has managed to meander yet again far away from the original OP, with you, head pulling apart every single thing I say and in the process taking my words far away from the context from which I made my comments. I don't which for this to evolve into yet another thread where every sentence I write is argued about, just for the sake of argument.

"I think the problem of trying to understand evil is that understanding slides so easily into rationalisations that make evil someone else's problem. I don't myself think there is anything better to describe the way way humans do vile, stupid, cruel things than Paul saying 'the thing I would do, I do not do; and the thing I would not do, that I do' (or words to that effect). GK Chesterton said that original sin was the one empirically provable Christian doctrine - the evidence being not only all around us but also in ourselves."

Niminy I love this comment and conversely this is why I seek to understand evil. (Sorry the conversation has moved on a few pages now.) Because evil IS us, it's within us/me, and as such that's why it's my problem and why I can't leave it unchallenged - in me. But as Christians we are also called to challenge the institutional evil in our society, I wish we did more of that tbh.

"Christianity is far more realistic about human nature than the prophets of progress." - Yes!!!

I don't see that it's Christianity that denies evil when it seeks to understand it, but our contemporary culture which passes on a message that our actions have no consequences. Which sadly leaks into Christianity and original sin has become pretty unpopular. It's the only explanation I can see for our current suicidal behavior as a species though. If original sin doesn't exist, why on earth would we be continuing to live a life of massive consumption, at the expense of the world's poorest and most vulnerable (initially)? The only explanation of this that makes sense to me is original sin.

To me, that human kind (as a collective decision) was able to crucify Jesus, is simply indicative of how flawed human kind is. Under the law murder is punished, so people can say human kind deserves to be punished. We (as in human kind) punished God in Jesus for what were our own flaws. Yet God forgives us. Christ asked His father for our forgiveness.

Beautifully written Capsium, you have articulated this better than I ever could .This is a very thought provoking thread and interesting .

It's so sad that this thread has meandered so far from the OP's opening post and that Head hounds Capsium so much. Your treatment of Capsium here suggests to me that you aren't at peace with your decision, Head. That might be wildly inaccurate as I don't know you, however, I do know plenty of atheists/agnostics who are open minded and accepting of other faiths. If a person is at peace with a choice then they don't need to tear others down for making an alternative choice .

There is no certainty that Jesus wouldn't have been killed had he originally come to 21st C Britain. Sure the state would not have been likely to kill him as currently stands. But as we can see from the example of people who tried to change things for the better in the last century - Gandhi, MLK, Mandela - this still comes with great personal risk. From recent examples in America we can see how unsafe people can be in police custody in Western culture.

We do not live in a just society, and although we may not be barbaric in the way you suggest any longer, we do live under the two greatest man made threats to the continuation of life that have ever existed - nuclear weapons and climate change. The barbarism is just as great today, but in the West tends to express itself very differently to the ways you highlight - as apathy, as comfort, as self-protection, as materialism. These things lead to the unnecessary and brutal deaths of others and yet because we don't see these deaths first hand we don't feel connected to them.

To me, that human kind (as a collective decision) was able to crucify Jesus, is simply indicative of how flawed human kind is. Under the law murder is punished, so people can say human kind deserves to be punished. We (as in human kind) punished God in Jesus for what were our own flaws.

I find this whole Christian concept of transference of wrongdoing, all the way back to "original sin", absolutely vile. Human kind did not kill Jesus (assuming he existed at all). His death would have been ordered by some midranking civil servant of the Roman Empire in Judea, and carried out by a handful of conscripts with little choice if they didn't want to be crucified themselves. It had nothing to do with the people living in the Amazon jungle, or Iceland, or Aboriginals in Australia or Mauries in New Zealand or the people in Japan or anywhere else.

Honestly, forget about your dogma and just think about what you are saying. If human kind killed Jesus, then human kind also killed some random guy who was stabbed in a bar in Lima Peru last week when he'd only gone in to use the loo, and we should all be held accountable.

Honestly, forget about your dogma and just think about what you are saying. If human kind killed Jesus, then human kind also killed some random guy who was stabbed in a bar in Lima Peru last week when he'd only gone in to use the loo, and we should all be held accountable.

This was precisely my point. We are (collectively) accountable for people who commit horrific acts, as a society. We should ask questions as to why things like this happen. Merely relegating the perpetrators as something 'other' only magnifies problems, IMO.

It was not just the Roman establishment that crucified Jesus. The largely Jewish crowd had an opportunity to save Him from crucifixion' but they wanted Him crucified. Pilate's wife even warned Pilate not to execute Jesus and he washed his hands of the judgement.

tear others down

I might dismantle her reasoning but I am not 'tearing her down'. It seems that the only 'tearing down' that is done here is of my character with frequent resorts to ad hom about my personality. I have never felt the need to attack a posters character, if I wanted to denigrate a poster rather than their post I would know it was because I had been unable to criticise their argument.

head hounds capsium

You do realise Capsium has to actively read and then post a reply in order to engage. I haven't barged into her house and started shouting at her while she is watching TV. How am I possibly hounding her when she is choosing to respond and getting away from the debate it is a simple as not clicking on a link. I can only assume your emotional wording is an attempt to, again, make aspersions about my character rather than find fault in my reasoning.

You may be a sinner and flawed. I am not. I am simply human.

Wow, keep, I don't think I've ever come across a perfect person. Do you have a word of your wisdom to offer me?

Wow, keep, I don't think I've ever come across a perfect person. Do you have a word of your wisdom to offer me?"

She said she was human, not perfect. Me too.

Some one, genuinely, without flaw is perfect as they have no flaws.

(I have a strange déjà vu, regarding this conversation. keep, I think we might have had this conversation before)

So you flawless people, what can you offer up, in terms of wisdom?

BertrandRussell Exactly.

I don't see myself as a sinner or flawed, nor perfect. That is a very christian view.
I am simply human, a mixed bag of character traits and behaviours.

To view myself as a sinner is just plain weird.

So you accept you are not perfect. The OED defines 'perfect' as this:

"1.1Free from any flaw or defect in condition or quality; faultless:
the equipment was in perfect condition."

So you are not 'free from flaw' yet you have no flaws, you describe yourself as "not flawed". hmm

I am human. I screw up. I make mistakes. I do things that upset other people. When I do those things, I do whatever I can to put things right. That is what being human is all about. I am not sinful. Or inclined towards evil. I am inclined towards good. That is why I do what I can to fix the mistakes I make.