Did Jesus Have to be Crucified?

juantoo3 said:
I am wondering then if the question is mistaken, dear Luna. For if Jesus is Divine and G-d, then his will *is* the will of G-d, there is no "free" about it.

Therein lies a difference, in that all of the rest of us humans are free to will against or other than what G-d wills. If Jesus was G-d, he could not possibly will against or other than what G-d wills, because he is G-d. Jesus' will and our will then become two completely different critters.


Who are we to say what G-d would or would not do? He is G-d, He can implement whatever He wishes, it is His game to play as He sees fit. I trust there is some reason behind it all that I do not now understand but that is right and proper and meant to be.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments 123 but Thomas is right that I am coming at this from the orthodox view. I am asking about our free will in killing Jesus, not his free will to obey the Father.
 
Dream said:
If Jesus had refused, then he would not have been forced. Just going from the gospels, letters, etc. If he had refused it is likely that he would have undergone further discipline until he finally said 'Yes, I'll do it.'
If he continued to refuse all of his life. I think that it would mean something terrible had gone wrong. Certainly he didn't just pop out of the womb ready to die though.
Click to expand...


Being human I'm sure it was horrible to obey unto death, just as the temptations in the dessert were real. Having just given up a small thing in my life for Lent, or fasting for a day, I get an idea of how hard that must have been!

But I don't think he refused the father at any point, even if he demonstrated the perfectly human trait of asking to be spared.

As I tried to clarify above, I'm not asking about Jesus' willingness to go through with it...I think his willingness is the point. A perfect non-resistance to evil. I'm asking about our role in the crucifixtion. Sure, our hearts are only evil all the time, but it seems there is still a chance we might not have killed him, even if we did not recognize the light.
 
lunamoth said:
I'm asking about our role in the crucifixtion. Sure, our hearts are only evil all the time, but it seems there is still a chance we might not have killed him, even if we did not recognize the light.
Click to expand...

there were many people there, all with different views on Jesus. Sure, the pharisees conspired to kill him not wishing for their power to be taken away by the romans because of jesus, and the people that followed the pharisees. pilate tried to spare him a number of times, washed his hands of it, and finally gave the people what they wanted. the disciples followed jesus and one even took out a sword to defend him against his arrest. there were followers of jesus that were healed, that listened to what he said and believed in him to be innocent, the messiah, rabbi, and the Son of God, that did not wish him dead. so not everyone crucified him.
 
Hi Lunamoth —

Christianity forever comes up against the accusation of myth, of metaphor ... that the things recorded in Scripture didn't actually happen, but that Scripture is a gloss on a series of rather mundane events (if those events happened at all, as some might argue), a valid narrative process by which a spiritual subtext is brought to the fore in signs and symbols, that the realities the Christian believe in are not real in any material sense.

The Christian belief is the other way round. We believe that a spiritual subtext, the Truth of the World, was manifest in a material fashion, in actual people, in actual events, a TheoDrama played out in real life. What happened in the real world, for once, was what actually is, not what man, locked inside himself, assumes it to be.

The philosophers and the gnostics, in all their dualist permutations, see the world as a shadow play of The Real World.

The Christian, in their Hebraic and holistic inheritance, see The Real World not in shadow but in substance.

So there can be no 'what if' — what happened, actually happened, because that's the way it is. If the reality was different, if the actuality of the broken relationship between God and His creature was different, then something else would have happened, and that would be the truth of it ... but such is not the case.

What happened, did happen, and it had to happen, because any other way would be a fantasy, a fabrication, lie ... about as true as apples floating upward from the tree, as fish riding bicycles.

We had to do it by our free will, but if our free will is free then it might not have happened. We were compelled by our evil nature, but not by God.
Click to expand...
But our free will is free, and it did happen ... and it happened because we chose to exercise our will, not God's will ... we were 'compelled' by a fallen nature, not an evil nature — if we were by nature evil, we could not be saved.

If we are by nature evil, then we are not His creation.

Thomas
 
lunamoth said:
As far as I can tell, it does require a leap of faith somewhere along the path.
Click to expand...

For one thing, one has to accept a definition of "original sin" based on the story of the Fall that doesn't exactly jibe with the original context of the source material (assuming that Judaism comprehends it's own sacred texts). That's a big leap. And if one is to be making these big leaps, what recommends Jesus oriented salvation over, say, kindly aliens sending their ship to pick us all up? It doesn't seem to be any more or less a leap of faith either way.

Chris
 
Thanks for responding to my post, Lunamoth, even though it wasn't really what you were asking. I misunderstood the question. I would like to address what Chris said, too. Obviously, what happens happens so we're talking about why we do things, and what about the garden (original sin, etc). I don't think that we need leaps of faith or contradicting statements to understand crucifixion in relation to the garden, but there is still the problem we face as human beings with accepting God's actions.

What we know for certain is that God and the angels could have stopped the serpent, but they didn't. It was likely not an experiment but a demonstration of what a mixed creation, Adam and Eve, would naturally do. I suggest Romans 5:12 says that the judgment against Adam passed onto us because we are Adam's descendants, his kind, and of necessity destroyed. In other words God pronounced a death sentence in the Garden of Eden on what human beings *are*, which goes along really well with the Bible instances of human extermination such as the flood.
Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --
Click to expand...
This implicates God in planning the whole 'Garden thing' against us. You are asking whether God would do that? It matches well with what many other scriptures say. It isn't really an issue of leaps of faith, which are unnecessary. Its about whether you agree with what God did.
Romans 3:5-6 But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

I Corinthians 1:28-29 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
Click to expand...
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
For one thing, one has to accept a definition of "original sin" based on the story of the Fall that doesn't exactly jibe with the original context of the source material (assuming that Judaism comprehends it's own sacred texts). That's a big leap. And if one is to be making these big leaps, what recommends Jesus oriented salvation over, say, kindly aliens sending their ship to pick us all up? It doesn't seem to be any more or less a leap of faith either way.

Chris
Click to expand...

Hey Chris, you sure know how to pack a lot of interesting thoughts into a small amount of space. :)

Second point first, it's a big leap but I would not say for the reason you suggest (which I'll address in a bit). As for why not kindly aliens? The stepping stones of my life and experience lead up to the ledge of Christianity. Kindly aliens are neither compelling nor reasonable for me. :shrug: The leap does not start 300 yards from the edge of the cliff. I can describe the reasons and evidence that lead me to the edge, but I doubt it would work for you. Faith goes where reason can't, but that does not mean there is no reason before faith.

As to your first point, I agree that we must first seek to understand the story of Genesis in its own terms and recognize that Christian interpretations are just that, looking back through the lens of Christian faith. While I accept a concept of 'original sin,' I think my concept is more like that of the Jewish understanding, and not like that of Augustine. Christianity found meaning in baptism and the sacrifice of Jesus for a few hundered years before Augustine, and the Eastern Orthodox Church never did like the Augustinian original sin, so I don't think it's the keystone that makes all of Christianity stand or tumble.

Let me say clearly: of course Judaism understands its own Scriptures. I find it offensive when Christians imply they don't or that the Jews missed obvious clues that Jesus was the Messiah. Hogwash! We look back with Christ-colored glasses. (That also does not mean we have no right to do this...faith in Christ should affect our understanding of the OT writings).

Here's my understanding of it. The story of the sin of Adam and Eve is told, not so much to explain how sin came into the world, but to describe what sin is. The Fall is our claiming of moral autonomy and self rule, taking the place of God, and in doing so opening the possibility of overstepping our place, abusing our gifts. The result of the Fall is alienation: we are out of joint in our relationships with creation, each other, and God. In the sinless state ('before the Fall') our obligations to the earth, God and each other would be the natural response. But sin has entered the world, and with it the potential to put our own desires first. This leads to the cascade of disobedience (or failure to love), shame, blame, fear and alienation. I think it is this alienation, the separation between us and God, that is original sin.

Paul's epistle to the Romans is the main place in the NT where we see a connection between Adam and sin entering the world. But Paul is ambiguous about this: did Adam's act make sin inevitable or just possible? Augustine nailed it down that sin was inevitable, but I don't think we ahve to conclude this. Pelagius thought that sin was not inevitable, but then he pushed this to mean that we must bear the burden of our sins alone! Where's the grace in that?

To me, original sin represents that gulf, that alienation, that exists between people and between us and God. Original sin is my experience of being unable to perfectly love others as I love myself. That sin, while still there and affecting my behavior (its side effects) has been forgiven. And, I believe, it has been given freely to all of us. Accepting that forgiveness means trying to live into that perfection.

My 2c, :), and now it's time to sign off for the remainder of Holy Week.

Peace
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Hi Lunamoth —

Christianity forever comes up against the accusation of myth, of metaphor ... that the things recorded in Scripture didn't actually happen, but that Scripture is a gloss on a series of rather mundane events (if those events happened at all, as some might argue), a valid narrative process by which a spiritual subtext is brought to the fore in signs and symbols, that the realities the Christian believe in are not real in any material sense.

The Christian belief is the other way round. We believe that a spiritual subtext, the Truth of the World, was manifest in a material fashion, in actual people, in actual events, a TheoDrama played out in real life. What happened in the real world, for once, was what actually is, not what man, locked inside himself, assumes it to be.

The philosophers and the gnostics, in all their dualist permutations, see the world as a shadow play of The Real World.

The Christian, in their Hebraic and holistic inheritance, see The Real World not in shadow but in substance.

So there can be no 'what if' — what happened, actually happened, because that's the way it is. If the reality was different, if the actuality of the broken relationship between God and His creature was different, then something else would have happened, and that would be the truth of it ... but such is not the case.

What happened, did happen, and it had to happen, because any other way would be a fantasy, a fabrication, lie ... about as true as apples floating upward from the tree, as fish riding bicycles.


But our free will is free, and it did happen ... and it happened because we chose to exercise our will, not God's will ... we were 'compelled' by a fallen nature, not an evil nature — if we were by nature evil, we could not be saved.

If we are by nature evil, then we are not His creation.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Nicely said Thomas, thank you. Also, I agree with your distinction about fallen nature. I was merely trying to point out that we are capable of evil acts, such as the crucifixion, not that we are evil by nature.

Have a blessed Holy Week. :)
 
Dream said:
Thanks for responding to my post, Lunamoth, even though it wasn't really what you were asking. I misunderstood the question. I would like to address what Chris said, too. Obviously, what happens happens so we're talking about why we do things, and what about the garden (original sin, etc). I don't think that we need leaps of faith or contradicting statements to understand crucifixion in relation to the garden, but there is still the problem we face as human beings with accepting God's actions.

What we know for certain is that God and the angels could have stopped the serpent, but they didn't. It was likely not an experiment but a demonstration of what a mixed creation, Adam and Eve, would naturally do. I suggest Romans 5:12 says that the judgment against Adam passed onto us because we are Adam's descendants, his kind, and of necessity destroyed. In other words God pronounced a death sentence in the Garden of Eden on what human beings *are*, which goes along really well with the Bible instances of human extermination such as the flood.This implicates God in planning the whole 'Garden thing' against us. You are asking whether God would do that? It matches well with what many other scriptures say. It isn't really an issue of leaps of faith, which are unnecessary. Its about whether you agree with what God did.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the post Dream. I was not trying to ignore you...just have limited time to address all posts so I was trying to keep to the track I was most interested in.

I do not think that it was God's will that we sin, nor that we crucify Christ. Also, the leap of faith I was talking about with Chris is to enter into the story of Christ, to believe as Thomas so beautifully said "...that a spiritual subtext, the Truth of the World, was manifest in a material fashion, in actual people, in actual events, a TheoDrama played out in real life. What happened in the real world, for once, was what actually is, not what man, locked inside himself, assumes it to be."

I talked a bit about the Fall and original sin in my post to Chris, which maybe of interest to you in the light of your comments above.

Peace and have a blessed Holy Week
 
lunamoth said:
Let me say clearly: of course Judaism understands its own Scriptures. I find it offensive when Christians imply they don't or that the Jews missed obvious clues that Jesus was the Messiah. Hogwash! We look back with Christ-colored glasses.
Click to expand...
As to the first line from what I know of Judaism they are as varied in their beliefs (from orthodox to liberal, from mystical metaphor to literal it happened that way) as we Christians are.

As to the remainder, I'm in agreement.
lunamoth said:
Thank you for your comments 123 but Thomas is right that I am coming at this from the orthodox view. I am asking about our free will in killing Jesus, not his free will to obey the Father.
Click to expand...
"Our" free will in killing Jesus. Can you expound? Sins of the father?? We are pharisees? Romans? What does 'our' free will have to do with killing Jesus?

Are you indicating that 'we' needed his crucifiction today, therefor we have put in motion what happened in the past for our benefit?

Or is this a past life, continual soul/spirit discussion? Or of oneness with all that exists? I need clarification.
 
I'm sorry. I had forgotten that it's holy week. We're getting ready for easter, but ours is about the easter bunny, LOL. Maybe I should just let this go as a gesture of good will. Happy easter everyone!

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I'm sorry. I had forgotten that it's holy week. We're getting ready for easter, but ours is about the easter bunny, LOL. Maybe I should just let this go as a gesture of good will. Happy easter everyone!

Chris
Click to expand...
ah, best time for contemplation and discussion in my opinion.

Here we are leading upto Maundy Thursday, foot washing, contemplations of the garden, ...onto Good Friday where in our service we extinguish the candles of the disciples and then Easter morn service and then a potluck breakfast prior to our regular service, where last year I made a 'the cave is empty cantelope' (I often make a boat or a whale out of some melon and have it filled with melon balls, but last year the melon was on its side, the melon all removed and the part of the melon cut off was rolled aside so we could all see the tomb empty, I left a bench on oneside and some filo dough for the shroud, some angels sitting on top)

This year I was contemplating a sort of king cake idea (new orleans king cake is big, a cake with a small plastic baby cooked in it for mardi gras, good luck to get the baby) so anyway it was to be a "take this cup from me garden salad" and whoever found the small cup in their salad won the prize. But king cakes now have a warning for choking hazard for children under three...

so its sliced bagettes and lox with cream cheese, aspargus and capers...
 
I'm afraid it's going to look like I'm mean spirited. I just have these certain problems with the whole salvation/messiah thing. I tried really hard to make it make sense, but I can't.

Chris
 
Hi Chris —

China Cat Sunflower said:
I tried really hard to make it make sense, but I can't.
Click to expand...

Maybe because you've determine you don't need anyone else? You've spoken about your formative experiences, and about how you come to hold that you don't need religion, and you don't need anyone else ... your self-reliance is through-and-through.

... if I was to wax lyrical, I'd say this 'leap of faith' thing is a defence mechanism, and it's not the real issue, either ... it's not that you won't leap out, it's that you won't let anyone in.

Thomas
 
I didn't learn all of this stuff about the Bible trying to find a way out, Thomas. I was trying to find a way in. I wanted to believe, but I need something compelling to base it on. I can't just decide to believe, it has to come from somewhere. Coming from an entirely objective point of view (insofar as that's possible) how does worshiping a dead guy make sense? If one isn't culturally predisposed, or emotionally grasping I mean. I can dig the Logos concept, but the Jesus thing doesn't make sense. As long as it stays metaphysical it's all good. I can work with that.

Chris
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I'm afraid it's going to look like I'm mean spirited. I just have these certain problems with the whole salvation/messiah thing. I tried really hard to make it make sense, but I can't.

Chris
Click to expand...
There was a moment, when I was enjoying a rest stop during a vacation. Quite a scenic place off the California coast actually (Big Sur I believe it was called). Anywho, while enjoying the sights and the sea and the sun and the cliffs, a woman screamed in terror. All of us rushed to to sound, to find a frantic mother peering over the safety fence and down the cliff face. What she was looking at was her child who'd fallen over and lay on a ledge and crag bush. Below him was 500 feet of air and the sea below.

Between six of us we rigged harnesses and rope and I repelled down to the child. As I approached he kept saying "No, I don't want to fall..."

I said I would help him, but he kept saying "No, I don't want to fall". Finally I said "Can you climb up by yourself?" He thought long and hard on that one, then said "No, I can't."

"Fine, then let me help you" I said quietly. He did not move, nor say anything for an hour. Finally he reached up his hand and whispered "please help me..."

During that hour, I was quietly busy fashoning a harness for him, and a plan to get him out of his predicament (and both of us safely to the top). When he raised his hand for help, I moved like quick silver, grabbed him with my arms and legs wrapped around his body, then worked the "harness over him. Swinging him to my back I began walking up the cliff, then find a foot hold, while the "team" above pulled up slack. The "kid" was scared to death because he was swinging from my back and could do nothing but cry as I worked our way up the cliff and out of the mess he got himself into. Well we both made it safely to the top.

Then he asked me "are you God?"

No, just an extension/manifestation, when required, was all I could think of.

My point is this:

The kid had a serious issue with salvation from his situation, and it made no sense that he'd be swung precariously behind the back of a "stranger" and had to trust that stranger to get him safely to the top and out of harm's way. It made no sense to him either, as he was relatively "safe" where he was laying (but was he?)

And when he felt most vulnerable (out of control of his own destiny), was he in the most danger? Or is the reality that he was safest, swinging from the back of his rescuer, who knew exactly what to do to get them both out of danger...TOGETHER? And he simply had to let go and trust...?

I think God is like that, and we are like that. We think we're safe when we are in the most trouble and on our own, and yet we fear the most when we are safely taken care of and have no control, because someone else is doing all the work to save us...

Happy Easter (sans bunnies) Chris. :D
 
lunamoth said:
Given that we have free will, at any time the events leading up to the Cross could have gone another way. Did he have to die on the cross for God's plan to be effective?

If he did have to die on the cross, what does that say about free will and about God?

Is it reasonable to believe that salvation is completely found in the Incarnation itself, that God taking on flesh and sharing in our human suffering was sufficient sacrifice to conquer sin and death?

Is it possible that it says more about the price we demand from God that we crucified Jesus?
Click to expand...
Can you stop your anger at some fool that desperately needs a neck ringing? Can you ignore rage you have for the lawyer who is trying to take everything from you because you didn't file LLC for your company, and now are being sued? (hypothetical questions, but very real to many). In otherwords, have you ever harbored malice towards another? If so, then by God, you need Him, and the sacrifice He made for you. He saw you coming for miles, and He took your anger and sin on himself, so you would not have to suffer the "full measure". God the Father, can not look upon sin. So the Son fixed that problem. Now the Father can look upon you, and interact with you and help you, and soothe your brow, through His Lamb/Son/Sacrifice.

How Ironic. We have been sacrificing to God for our sins for eons...then God sacrificed the most precious thing to Him, for Man. No way we can beat that, except to accept the sacrifice and grace that comes with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top