What If Jesus Hadn't Been Crucified?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Hi Marcus (again),

I'm on my phone, and it's absurdly difficult to cut-paste material, so to answer your comment about militant Buddhists, I'll simply link below to an old post I made on this issue. Hope that's ok. Anyway, the material is there for you. All the best

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=246672&st=135&p=4749421entry4749421

[Marcus Aurelius]

PA,

Yes, I do feel there would be a huge difference in the WAY that Jesus died. This is why I noted in my OP that I agreed with everything that and then had said on page 1. I too believe in the atonement. The point is this: man is unable to save himself. By His death on the Cross, Jesus accomplishes what we cannot. It reminds me of the story in Genesis where Abraham is called to sacrifice his soon Isaac. Many critics of our faith think this is horrible; like what God would command this? But they miss the point, see? What God calls for is the RESPONSE of Abraham. Do you trust me? Do you have faith? So in faith he is willing to give up his own son...but then GOD provides the sacrifice. This story is a symbol to me of what Jesus truly is and what He has done. God sacrifices HIS only Son for US. GOD provides the sacrifice. And all He asks of us...is our response. Do you trust me? Do you have faith? So no, it couldn't have happened any other way. By HIS sacrificial death, He has defeated death.

With regards to Buddhism I figured you would have to go to feudal Japan to make that case. I don't think it's that good of an example personally because it's virtually the same problem we had with Christendom...those who are in power subvert the faith as another method of wielding, consolodating and expanding their power. You really don't find this within the major schools of Buddhism, though. And with the emergence of Zen in Japan, Buddhism moved away from that kind of feudal mentality.

Blessings,

MA

[StarMountainKid]

I'm trying to sort out all these previous posts, new ones keep coming up as I'm typing this. I said that if Jesus had not been crucified and had lived out a normal lifetime perhaps Christianity would have been a less violent religion, the violence perpetrated by its followers. kl;

The crucifixion could be considered a sort of rallying point, in my view. It's a pretty radical conclusion to his life. The fact that Jesus was tortured and killed perhaps has lead some to be more aggressive and passionate in promoting Christianity or one's version of Christianity. If he had lived his life to a natural conclusion, I'm just saying maybe his followers would not have been so intent on converting unbelievers and heretics on occasion by such violent means as history has shown. I could be mistaken, of course.

I still can't get my head around Jesus having died for our sins. I can understand his dying for his teachings, which makes sense to me, and I think this is why he was crucified. I think the dying for our sins idea evolved or was created later for obvious reasons.

Also, as Marcus Aurelius stated above, the Buddha's emphasis was always on his teaching, not on himself. Contrarily, Jesus emphasis was on himself as the ultimate authority separate from his followers. Any one could attain Buddhahood, but no one could attain Jesushood, not in this life, anyway.

I think this is a stumbling block for Christians, a sort of dead end street. No matter how hard we try, we are always guilty. Jesus is the boss's son, he has this advantage over us, and we are powerless to emulate him. I understand that if we believe in Jesus our sins will be washed away after our death, but this still leaves us guilty in life.

As an alternative, if Jesus had lived a long, loving and peaceful life, demonstrating this kind of life could actually be achieved, perhaps this kind of exemplary life would have made Christianity a more gentle religion for some.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm trying to sort out all these previous posts, new ones keep coming up as I'm typing this.

It's because you started a really good topic!

The crucifixion could be considered a sort of rallying point, in my view. It's a pretty radical conclusion to his life. The fact that Jesus was tortured and killed perhaps has lead some to be more aggressive and passionate in promoting Christianity or one's version of Christianity. If he had lived his life to a natural conclusion, I'm just saying maybe his followers would not have been so intent on converting unbelievers and heretics on occasion by such violent means as history has shown. I could be mistaken, of course.

I see what you are saying here, and while there may be some truth to it, ultimately, I don't think it would have mattered. The thing is, religions make truth claims. Now anyone can subvert those truth claims and use it to their own ends. I think this is what creates the violence, conflicts and oppression. Religion, in a sense becomes your weapon. Just take a couple case and points. The Prophet Mohammad lived out his natural life, and despite the conflicts he endured, he died a natural death. And yet people twist Islam to make it a religion of violence when it is not. Then take Hinduism. Hinduism's gods (trinity) are wholly other. There may be incarnations of them in a material form, such as Krishna; but they do not become man. And they also emphasize following the path over simply being a devotee. And yet, Hinduism gave rise to the barbaric caste system. Again; religion can be subverted and used as a weapon, even one that emphasizes the teachings and the following of a path.

To be honest with you, I take all of this; that we can even twist systems of kindness and compassion and turn them into violence is proof of one of the truth claims that nearly every religion makes in some form or other; that there is something wrong with human nature and we are in a state of error or delusion. Even Buddhism begins with this principle. We all have different names for it; but you can find the same essential concept in virtually every religious system. We can even twist what is supposed to bring us to salvation, nirvana or enlightenment and use it for evil.

I think this is a stumbling block for Christians, a sort of dead end street. No matter how hard we try, we are always guilty. Jesus is the boss's son, he has this advantage over us, and we are powerless to emulate him. I understand that if we believe in Jesus our sins will be washed away after our death, but this still leaves us guilty in life.

I understand where you are coming from with this. I used to think Christians were a miserable lot. Lol in fact, when I saw the Da Vinci Code movie for the first time; I looked at Silas and I thought, well this is what I used to think Christians were basically like. Not that they beat themselves with whips or anything; but rather that they lived in a state of perpetual guilt over some perceived offense to God. And there ARE churches like that; that preach this gospel of guilt. And this of course stems from the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

But this is just wrong. This is NOT how Christians should live. You've been liberated, set free!! A Christian should feel JOY, not despair; not condemnation.

And you shouldn't feel powerless to emulate Him, because that's not the point, see? Jesus would say something like "I don't expect you to be perfect. Do the best you can. Be the best person you can be. But don't worry, I'VE got you covered. I will take care of the rest." Far from putting a burden on you, He REMOVES the burden.

Personally, this is one of the reasons why I'm Christian. I love studying other religions. I have friends of various religions and I work in the interfaith community. But what makes me uniquely Christian is the fact that I don't have to do it all by myself. See, in just about every other religion you have got to climb up to the top of that mountain of salvation, nirvana or enlightenment...whatever you want to call it all by yourself. But Christianity is DIFFERENT. Christianity says Jesus climbed the top of the mountain first; that He climbed it for us; and that if you just trust Him...He will reach out His hand and pull you to the top. Your sins aren't just washed away after death. They are washed away NOW, right now!!! Your faith makes you a new man. Christianity is a religion of new beginnings and of hope.

This is why as one who is studying to be a pastor, if God graces me to put me in a pulpit...you won't ever hear me preaching this gospel of guilt. I want to show people that through faith in Him you are redeemed, and how to live a redeemed and joyous life. Far from breaking you down, He will HEAL you if you let Him!

So to be specific; if I followed any other of these great religious systems; THEN I would feel crushed, defeated; like I am never doing good enough. I would say that I cannot break these attachments, that I am hopelessly caught up in this samsara, and that my karma will probably cause me to be born again and again, because even though I am AWARE of it, I may not be living it out as perfectly as I should.

By contrast, Jesus says, no, I'll take care of that FOR you. One of my faith should feel liberated, set free! I'm happier than I've ever been in my own life...because I am forgiven and because I am loved by God.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[Philangeli]

The Prophet Mohammad lived out his natural life, and despite the conflicts he endured, he died a natural death. And yet people twist Islam to make it a religion of violence when it is not.

...

To be honest with you, I take all of this; that we can even twist systems of kindness and compassion and turn them into violence is proof of one of the truth claims that nearly every religion makes in some form or other; that there is something wrong with human nature and we are in a state of error or delusion.

According to Islamic sources, Mohammed died of high fever at the age of 63. I'm not sure if I would consider that as living out his natural life.

When he was close to death, he was recorded as saying:

"May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.

Sahih Bukhari 4:56:660

Hardly, a promotion of kindness and compassion, don't you think?

[Marcus Aurelius]

According to Islamic sources, Mohammed died of high fever at the age of 63. I'm not sure if I would consider that as living out his natural life.

When he was close to death, he was recorded as saying:

"May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.

Sahih Bukhari 4:56:660

Hardly, a promotion of kindness and compassion, don't you think?

First of all, we are talking about a natural death vs. The violent death of the Crucifixion, so while death from fever is a lamentable thing, I would still call it natural and hardly violent.

Second, you are quoting from a Hadith, which is not the same as the Holy Quran. Just because this statement is attributed to him doesn't mean that he actually said it. Muslims do not deem the Hadiths as being equal to scripture. Thus, this should not be taken as definitive.

Third, what this is talking about is what they perceived to be idol worship. It is a commentary on building places of worship over their saints, putting up pictures of them and seemingly worshiping these saints and prophets themselves..instead of God. Is this so horrible? Protestants condemn the very same practice.

This is not to be taken as a blanket statement against all Christians and Jews; but rather against those who were seemingly engaging in idol worship.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA,

Yes, I do feel there would be a huge difference in the WAY that Jesus died. This is why I noted in my OP that I agreed with everything that and then had said on page 1.

Thanks for the clarification.

I too believe in the atonement. The point is this: man is unable to save himself. By His death on the Cross, Jesus accomplishes what we cannot. It reminds me of the story in Genesis where Abraham is called to sacrifice his soon Isaac. Many critics of our faith think this is horrible; like what God would command this? But they miss the point, see? What God calls for is the RESPONSE of Abraham. Do you trust me? Do you have faith? So in faith he is willing to give up his own son...but then GOD provides the sacrifice. This story is a symbol to me of what Jesus truly is and what He has done. God sacrifices HIS only Son for US. GOD provides the sacrifice. And all He asks of us...is our response. Do you trust me? Do you have faith? So no, it couldn't have happened any other way. By HIS sacrificial death, He has defeated death.

I agree with this. But it's also important (imo) to additionally highlight that Abraham had good reason to trust God. Every promise Abraham was given had come to fruition, including the birth of Isaac to an elderly and barren woman. Otherwise, one could think of God as a sort of Mafia boss - you kill this boy for me and I make you my number 1 lieutenant...... until something better comes and I put on you the concrete footwear.

Likewise to us today, when Christians are asked to trust God, I think we have reasonable evidence to make that decision. Of course, not everyone would agree with that last sentence, but I believe it's true.

With regards to Buddhism I figured you would have to go to feudal Japan to make that case. I don't think it's that good of an example personally because it's virtually the same problem we had with Christendom...those who are in power subvert the faith as another method of wielding, consolodating and expanding their power. You really don't find this within the major schools of Buddhism, though. And with the emergence of Zen in Japan, Buddhism moved away from that kind of feudal mentality.

Blessings,

MA

All fair points. But if you go to the context of the comment I was responding to, Star Mountain asked if Christianity would have been "gentler" if Christ died naturally. My response was to say that the earliest Christians were peaceful, and it wasn't until people in power corrupted it that it became violent. I then springboarded into militant Buddhism. I think we're actually in agreement that it's not the teaching or the manner of death of the religious founder that caused violence in either Christianity or Buddhism, but rather the way it was used by those in power to seek even more power. Correct?

As always, it's good discussing with you these things, I really enjoy it. I'm actually planning a thread sometime soon to put forward my ideas of Jesus' teachings from a purely "non-Christian" perspective - what I mean by that is removing all reference to miracles and prophecy and Messiah-hood, and treating Jesus as a mere human being who simply had a relevant and timely message for 1st century Jews. Unfortunately that's a detailed question so I'll have to wait until I can access a laptop or computer with internet access (my phone just doesn't cut it). Anyway, when I do get to posting said thread I'd really enjoy your thoughts on it.

Until then, best wishes as always

~ PA

Edited May 1, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Marcus Aurelius]

PA,

Yes, we are in total agreement there. I was arguing the same thing a couple posts back.

I look forward to this thread of yours....

Blessings,

MA

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

The blood of a sinner cannot appease God. Thing is, God created a bunch of heavy rules for humans to follow, almost impossible to follow. See Exudus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Only a blemish-free being can fulfill the "scapegoat" position (for the Day of Atonement). To cut a long story short, the Word became flesh, God incarnated as Jesus, a blemish-free human being. Jesus had to die ("so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God"), "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

[Sean93]

Well, he had to die other for the sins of mankind so it was going to happen - or so it is said.

I've not given it much thought but was Judas required to betray Jesus as part of the plan?

[Taun]

Well, he had to die other for the sins of mankind so it was going to happen - or so it is said.

I've not given it much thought but was Judas required to betray Jesus as part of the plan?

I am by no means a biblical scholar of any sort, and what I'm saying in this posting is my view of things - "unhindered by education" as a friend used to say..

Judas' actions were vital to the crucifiction... whether Judas did it or someone else... If he had not betrayed Jesus, would he still have been caught? Most likely, but this

way there was no violence against anyone else (except for the ear of the guard being cut off)...

While I'm sure Judas' actions did not endear him to the other apostles, Jesus knew it was happening and made no attempt to stop it... So I'm sure he was 'forgiven' for the betrayal...

Judas' "Sin" was in taking his own life later...

At least that is my take on it...

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

was Judas required to betray Jesus as part of the plan?

Sounds to me like the Gospel of Judas.

[eight bits]

OP

Wasn't Jesus' redemptive death a later addition to or interpretation of the passion?

It's in Paul's letters. How much earlier a narrative did you have in mind?

[markdohle]

It is not that simple. The New Testament is not very kind to those who deserted Jesus....the women the only ones brave enough to stick with it....except for John, but he was very young and the women probably just took him along. Yet three days after, something happened, then suddenly, many believed in the Risen Lord. The Jews were not unintelligent, something happened. Men died for the risen Lord, he is not a myth.

http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm

[Davros of Skaro]

Jesus replaces the Temple cult sacrifice of animals, and grains as burnt offerings.The sacrifices & offerings were to appease God to overlook Sin (You can research this in Leviticus).

The Barrabas passage in the Gospels mimics the "Scapegoat" ritual on Yom Kippor.Two Goats are selected.One Goat has the tribes Sins cast on it then released out in the wild.The other Sinless unblemished Goat is sacrificed up to God.Just like the Sinfull Barrabas is released, and Jesus sacrificed.

Jesus curses a fig tree for not bringing forth fruit.Jesus goes to the Temple, and chases out the money changers.Jesus walks past the same fig tree, but the tree is now withered from his curse of no longer giving fruit.The fig tree is a symbol of the Temple cult that was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

Jesus replaces the Temple cult, and God's need for sacrifices.

OP I believe if you read "Gospel Fictions" by R Helms, it will answer your question.

[StarMountainKid]

I'm actually planning a thread sometime soon to put forward my ideas of Jesus' teachings from a purely "non-Christian" perspective - what I mean by that is removing all reference to miracles and prophecy and Messiah-hood, and treating Jesus as a mere human being who simply had a relevant and timely message for 1st century Jews.

I would be interested in reading this. I think a sort of Gospel of Jesus the Man would be welcomed by non-believers and people on the fence, so to say.

Edited May 1, 2014 by StarMountainKid

[hellig heilige]

I follow Jesus because of his claim to be God. If Jesus had been a common mortal people today wouldn't have cared. Jews crucified him because they thought he was uppity. I don't follow buddha and moha mad because they're uppity.

[StarMountainKid]

OP

Wasn't Jesus' redemptive death a later addition to or interpretation of the passion?

It's in Paul's letters. How much earlier a narrative did you have in mind?

I was just wondering how soon after the curcifixion this idea came forth. Was this Jesus' idea?

[JJ50]

I follow Jesus because of his claim to be God. If Jesus had been a common mortal people today wouldn't have cared. Jews crucified him because they thought he was uppity. I don't follow buddha and moha mad because they're uppity.

Why would you follow someone who claims to be God? I would be very suspicious of any human making such a claim.

[eight bits]

SMK

I was just wondering how soon after the curcifixion this idea came forth. Was this Jesus' idea?

I don't know. It may help to look closely at what Paul says, and what Jesus' death is supposed to contribute to general redemption. Surely not a human sin sacrifice - Jews do not practice that, and their God forbids it. That kind of theory, at least, can confidently be placed after Paul.

If Jesus hadn't been killed, then Paul couldn't have interpreted his visionary experience as being Jesus raised from the dead. Jesus' being raised was, for Paul, the decisive sign that the end of days had begun, and that other people would shortly be raised as well (or never die at all). It designated Jesus as the Messiah, so getting right with him was getting right with God. It also marked the completion of the Sinai covenant for Jews, and the beginning of a new convenant for everybody, apparently along the lines of Jeremiah 31: 31-34:

See, days are coming—oracle of the LORD—when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. They broke my covenant, though I was their master—oracle of the LORD.

But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days—oracle of the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.They will no longer teach their friends and relatives, "Know the LORD!" Everyone, from least to greatest, shall know me—oracle of the LORD—for I will forgive their iniquity and no longer remember their sin.

As you can see, the new covenant, in and of itself, is the end of sin and sin culpability.

Did Jesus himself ever think any such thing about his own death? It's hard to say. If I had to guess, I'd say it was Paul, trying to make sense afterwards of what must have been a shocking experience for him. But Paul does portray the whole thing as an intentional act on Jesus' part. The possibility that it was Jesus' idea cannot be eliminated, IMO, but there is no quality evidence about it.

Edited May 2, 2014 by eight bits

[Leonardo]

Did Jesus himself ever think any such thing about his own death? It's hard to say. If I had to guess, I'd say it was Paul, trying to make sense afterwards of what must have been a shocking experience for him. But Paul does portray the whole thing as an intentional act on Jesus' part. The possibility that it was Jesus' idea cannot be eliminated, IMO, but there is no quality evidence about it.

What Paul writes of Jesus can only be regarded as hearsay. Paul speak little in his various communications of his life before his conversion, relating only that he was an apparently pious Jew who had scant regard for Christians. He does not mention that he had known of a Jesus, or mention any notable figure in the Christian movement in any references from before his conversion in his writings.

His earliest mention of Jesus, in the chronology we can deduce from his writings, is from his actual conversion. So how did he know of this figure to recognise in his state of near-delirium?