Hello and greetings, DitB.
I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that God will always rescue those of His people who are oppressed and persecuted. When God allowed Jesus to die in the story of Christianity, God had betrayed His duty.
There are differences, however, between how Islam and Christianity would interpret the death of a prophet or apostle with a mission, character, personality and demeanour like that of Jesus. Jesus' death wasn't seen as a defeat for the cause of Christianity. Nor was it seen as God betraying His people. Instead, God was seen as supporting His people. A Muslim may interpret God allowing Mohammed to die as a sign that He didn't support the cause of Islam. But this has to do with how Muslims see the purpose of Islam. Muslims consider Mohammed to be the Seal of the Prophets, the deliverer of the Final Message. If God allowed Mohammed to die, it would have meant that God didn't support Mohammed. The validity of his message depended on his survival in the face of conflict, oppression and persecution.
But Christianity is not Islam. Christians don't see Jesus as "the Seal of the Prophets" or "deliverer of the Final Message." How Muslims see Mohammed and Islam does not dictate how Christians should see their hero. Jesus' name in Hebrew/Aramaic apparently means "God rescues." The question of whether God supported Jesus' cause depended on whether He supported Jesus' role as "rescuer" of His people.
One of the roles Jesus filled (out of others he pursued) was defending the oppressed and persecuted. Of the oppressed and persecuted, he was particularly concerned about those under the influence of religious leaders who took a dogmatic approach/interpretation of Judaism. Jesus was opposed to the idea of people being enslaved and manipulated by religious dogma. Some people were certainly being persecuted and oppressed because of the social stigma associated with failure to conform to the rules/laws/institutions formulated by the religious leaders. The difficulty of conforming to religious dogma made the lives of many in Israel miserable.
Jesus gave them peace and hope by offering an alternative. They would be his followers rather than conformists to religious dogma. They would no longer have to compete with others for self-worth in the struggle to find a place in the dogmatic pecking order where the better you conformed, the more holy you became. Jesus defended those who couldn't conform. He vindicated them.
But then the day came when Jesus was finally arrested and sentenced to death. But by then his mission was already complete. He had achieved what he had come to do - to rescue his people from oppression and persecution. The crucifixion
appeared at first to be a setback in the cause of the oppressed and persecuted. It appeared that God didn't support them. The people felt sad, miserable and defeated again. But then Jesus came back to life. Because they were told that it was God who had brought him back to life, the message was clear: God
supported their cause.
The resurrection in the story of Christianity is more important than the crucifixion in this regard. The resurrection would not have happened if Jesus didn't die, but without the resurrection God would not have been able to declare support for the people Jesus liberated from religious dogma. Jesus needed to die to create the irony that although God could allow one of His prophets to die, He could bring them back to life. The enemies of God's people could kill His prophets and messengers, but God could still, in defiance, bring them back to life. God let them win one battle, but they would ultimately lose the war.
The idea that God could have saved Jesus from dying is understandable, but it makes more sense to think he did die in this context. In this situation, Jesus wasn't the only person being persecuted and oppressed. What about the people being enslaved and manipulated by religious dogma? These people needed support. If Jesus really believed in what he said and did then he needed to go the whole way. God's messenger had to be willing to go the distance. Otherwise everything he said and did was a waste. Jesus had to show his people he was willing to pay the price and take the plunge.
In the end, understandably, Jesus couldn't take it. He started crying out to God for help. He asked God to liberate him from the pain. Maybe take him up to heaven. But it would have been unethical for God to have given in to Jesus' selfish cries for rescue, especially after what Jesus had lived for and stood for, said and done. Martyrs have to be martyrs, not people who chicken out at the last minute!!! Despite the pain, however, Jesus didn't recant. He only asked God for liberation. Cut the ordeal short.
(Jesus' crucifixion could be seen as a precursor to that of people sentenced to death in medieval times by the medieval Catholic Church. Just as the religious authorities in Jesus' day were derived historically from an establishment that killed the prophets and apostles, the churches of today are derived from an establishment that, similarly, killed prophets and apostles.
Here we are reading about it all. A lot of Christians of today are repeating what the Pharisaic establishment did to Jesus. Deja vu. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.)
A lot of people think Jesus' death was about God forgiving sins. I think that's a misunderstanding. There is certainly a lot said about God forgiving sins, but I don't believe it was because God couldn't forgive sins. I believe Jesus' death had a lot more to do with religious leaders telling people that God can't accept them if they don't conform to their rules, values and principles. Jesus liberated people from being enslaved and manipulated by such dogma. The death and resurrection was God expressing support for this newly liberated bunch of people. So the crucifixion isn't about God's inability to forgive people. It was God saying that He accepts people even if they can't conform to religious dogma. Jesus was already telling people their sins were forgiven even before he was sentenced to die. God already accepted them. The death and resurrection was a declaration of support.
The
irony of all this is that Christians are often forced to believe that Jesus died for their sins, or forced to believe that God can't accept them if they don't think that God can't accept them any other way, ....except if they think Jesus' death was somehow essential for God to accept them..... which is in itself a kind of oppression and persecution. It's like contemporary Christians need a New Jesus to be crucified on their behalf to liberate them from religious dogma of today's Christianity.
It's interesting how a slight paradigm shift causes misunderstandings both for those inside, and outside of a religion.
I'm not sure what you mean by jurisprudence. My understanding of "jurisprudence" is that it's usually about legalism and the derivation of rules and laws for a society. I suppose that in this context you're talking about matters of belief and doctrine?
If that's what you're referring to, then what Ahanu said about the crucifixion might come into this. It's interesting to hear that Muslims don't all think that Jesus didn't die. It says to me not only that Muslims don't all commit to thinking Jesus didn't die, but maybe that Islam itself isn't committed either way. Was Mohammed not a mediator between the Jews, Christians and Arabs? If Islam sought to find a resolution for the philosophical dispute between Jews and Christians it should be one acceptable to all parties involved. It would be reasonable in my view if Islam was uncommitted on this issue. I suppose that might be seen as a matter of "jurisprudence."
