If Jesus had the power to prevent his crucifixion, was his death suicide?

Great Debates
21

Polycarp, I’d like to respond to your question about why God chose THIS course of action as opposed to some other. I find it helpful to imagine the discussion the Trinity might have had before choosing this course. They may have touched on the following points: (Please forgive any presumptuousness; none is meant.)

  1. If We create intelligent beings, We want them to love Us.

  2. If We compel that love, it won’t be meaningful; it will just be machines acting the part. It must be voluntary to be love.

  3. If the beings can CHOOSE to love Us, they can also choose NOT to love Us. Those who choose to love Us can live with Us, but what do we do with those who don’t love Us?

  4. We could do away with them or We could let them continue to live. If We destroy them, then those who chose to love Us will begin to fear Us, thinking that if they ever stop loving Us they’ll be destroyed too. If we let them live despite not holding to Our law of love, they will soon be the cause of much misery and pain among those who love Us and even among themselves.

  5. Let’s let those who don’t love Us continue to live until everyone can see what the end result of that choice actually is. Once they realize that while they don’t want to live with Us, they also don’t want to, even can’t, live without Us; then it will be seen to be most merciful to allow them to cease to exist. At the same time, those who do love Us will be able to see that We let the others go out of mercy not vengeance. Keeping them alive longer and longer would not lead them to eventually return to Us; instead, it would only prolong the misery of all, the non-lovers included.

22

Of course his death was suicide. And also murder. But neither, and both. And sacrifice, except that it wasn’t. And cruel tyranny, and forgiveness. Don’t look so confused, it’s very simple:

God is the Almighty and is the Creator of All that Is and God is infallible, and one day God created peoplekind, and then peoplekind was corrupted by a certain serpentine thingie that by prior definition is also the creation of beforementioned God. This insurrectionist act of corruption forced the abovementioned Almighty God to cast this most important centerpiece of Creation out of Eden. This was either a screwup on God’s part or was part of God’s intention, but we need not worry about that right now. The important thing is that peoplekind gets the blame. Unless you’re a serpent, in which case I wouldn’t count myself blameless just yet.

Whereupon peoplekind were cursed with original sin (presumably by God, lest we ascribe the power to curse God’s centerpiece to any lesser being), which was a situation that troubled the Almight God and vexed him muchly, until he decided to fix the problem by demanding of himself a sacrifice, see?

He sent his Son, who was Himself, God, down to earth to reside amongst these downfallen centerpieces of creation (aka “sinners”) and there to die for our sins, a sacrifice made necessary because of our original sin (see above), presumably by God, since no one else is around who could dictate such terms to God, so God demanded of Jesus, who is God, that Jesus
die in order to redeem our sins. With me so far?

So Jesus died, except that he didn’t. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God who is himself, and the two of God who are identically God are happily pleased that God got hisself killed on our behalf, and as a result, if we acknowledge all of the above, we too may enter the kingdom of heaven as soon as we die.

Any questions?

23

A simple answer someone passed to me:

He had to die in order to be resurrected he had to die. He came to conquer death, to do that he had to die.

24

“Lewisian Trichotomy” – it was C.S. Lewis who said that what we learn of Jesus from the Gospels reduces the possibilities about him to three alternatives: He’s either the greatest con man who ever lived, a liar through and through; or else he’s a lunatic on the exact level of the guy in the insane asylum who thinks he’s Napoleon on his good days – on his bad days he thinks he’s God; or else he’s exactly what he’s claimed to be, God in human form, Lord and Master of this world humbly taking the role of itinerant rabbi in order to pay the debt for sin.

You clearly buy into this line of thinking, though it seems apparent you weren’t aware of its origin in C.S. Lewis’s writings.

However, while I do accept Him as the Son of God incarnate as man, I can see other alternative that fit with the Gospel texts: a mystical prophet, for example, who identifies with the God He loves and calls Father so closely that He can say things like “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” Still merely a man, not God in human form, but speaking in metaphorical language of the spiritual communion possible between God and man. This would accord with the Jewish conception of what the Messiah was supposed to be. And on this ground, He taught us how to die for what we believe in – His death did not “pay God’s toll for the forgiveness of sins” – God loves the people He created and willingly forgives sins if people will only turn to Him and get from Him the spiritual help they need to live the richer, more fulfilling lives He intends for them. The I AM sayings in John are on this argument God speaking through the mouth of the Jesus the prophet, no different from Isaiah saying, “Thus saith the Lord, ‘I am wroth with Judah, for it has transgressed against Me’…”

Or perhaps the deification of Jesus proceeded in the decades after His death, and the sayings in which He claims identity or affinity with God are things written back into His mouth by writers convinced of His divinity but never actually claimed by Him.

I don’t personally buy these explanations. But how are we to defend the traditional understanding of who He is and reject them as inadequate. What makes the Liar/Lunatic/Lord choice a necessity? Why are those the only three options?

We need to be able to answer that question.

25

Polycarp,
The view you present – that Jesus was a prophet and filled the role of the foretold Messiah, but was not actually God – is among the possibilities of what Jesus really was; the others being mentioned in the Lewis trichotomy. While looked at as you describe it may appear to be different from the three Lewis explanations; looked at another way, however, that prophet could still fit two of the three possibilities – liar or lunatic. Consider that no other biblical prophet, not even the greatest of them, said anything close to the statement, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father”. To the contrary, they seemed overawed by God and considered Him indescribable and unapproachable. Further, if Jesus was only a prophet, then some of what He said would contradict earlier prophecies and teachings; e.g.: as you said, that His death did not pay for our sins. Finally, when other prophets delivered messages from God they made it clear that they were delivering a message (as in your mention of Isaiah), not speaking as though they were God Himself (as in your mention of John’s account of Jesus). Your reference to the “I AM” statement is a case in point. When asked if He was the Messiah, His answer wasn’t just a simple Yes; He used a term which they reserved exclusively for God, as I expect you realize. So a prophet who though only a human claimed equality with God would be a liar or a lunatic, no matter how well intentioned.

As for your final paragraph and statement that we need to be able to defend the Lewis trichotomy, I’m of the opinion that logical proofs and arguments convince very few. Instead, most come to believe as a result of reaching their hearts before their minds.

26

According to many (including John Wesley - founder of Methodism and some other noteable Saints) you left out :
6) Even after earthly death we continue to work on the intransigent until they finally do turn to us - meaning everyone eventually is saved and returns home to God - universal salvation.

IE - God always wins - He makes the rules, he never stops trying and we mortals can fight against him our whole lives but He never stops loving us, he never gives up on us , and someday - with each of us, He wins in the end.

I believe that as well, because if I was setting it up, I would have to do something like that, plus I could never believe in the eternal torments of Hell - that would be a worse crime than anything we mortals could ever do in one lifetime.

God Bless You all

No offense intended for those who do believe that some fall short and are left behind(for ever).

Peace

Adamant

27

Christ is God come to Earth in human form. He put His crown aside to live as a man. While he certainly could have saved Himself, He instead died as a man, as a sacrafice for what we have done to displease God. Without the His death, the death of God on Earth, we would still have to bear the burden of our own sins. This is what God sent Him to do.

He did not take His own life, but was obedient to what God wanted from Him, even to death…

28

What happened to that thingee called evolution? Do I have to believe in Adam and Eve to be a Christian?

Jesus also said not to call him “good” because only his Father was “good”. That to me indicates that Jesus was making a distinction that put God on a higher level.

As in most instances polycarp’s answer in right on the mark. I personally resent the claim that I must consider Jesus a liar/lunatic/or Lord. Rather that argue the point I will simply point out that Rev. Leslie Weatherhead certainly did not believe in such a ridiculous and limited idea.

Rev. Weatherhead made this the subject of many of his sermons. He pointed out that Jesus told the parable about The Lost Sheep in which the shepard was not satisfied until all the sheep were brought home. Rev. Weatherhead did not believe Jesus said that the only way to God was through him. I believe that if he said it, he meant he knew and preached the way, but not he owned the patent.

29

Another point of understanding, on a somewhat simpler level, is the understanding of St. Augustine:

God made man. Man turned against God, and welching of a debt of untold proportions. How can this debt be repaid? Man simply cannot marshall the resources - a billion people, or even a billion billions, only add to it. The debt is without end. Only God has the power to end it. Yet, although He could annul it, that does not really destroy it. The debt is hidden, but the guilt remains. Therefore, it must be repaid by mankind. And since God alone has the power of the debt, so must it be paid by God, to God. Hence, Jesus.

30

What a fascinating read these messages are. I am not as well versed in the Bible and some of you are but I would like to try my hand at this discussion.

I believe that Jesus was the Son of God…as in “He gave His only begotten son…” I cannot logically fathom that God is the Son and Father at the same time. (That is only my belief, I am not disputing what you all believe. I am just putting this "out on the table).

God gave the world His only Son in the form of Jesus. Jesus was born to two poor and common people, Mary and Joseph. Had He been highly born and privileged, not much notice would be taken of Him. In order to bring light to the multitude of the populous, He had to be born poor, as most of the people were slaves, freemen or poverty stricken. Very few of the populous were patriarchs or kings. If you were a patriarch, you could become a slave the next day if you didn’t watch your step.

Also, where it is stated that the meek shall inherit the earth, how would that relate if Jesus were born to the higher echeleon? The Golden Grail: is it formed w/ the finest gold befitting a king? OR is formed as a wooden chalice befitting a carpenter?

As Jesus grew and became beloved by “His” people, as the religion of Christianity grew in popularity as people saw the way God intended us to live in richness and wealth (i.e. helping each other, treating each other as we would want to be treated ourselves, with respect and love; not stealing…all of which became part of the 10 commandments) not wealth in monies collected through corruption and pervisity.

In those times, it was nothing to kill people or have people killed through dangerous slave labor (days before OSHA). However, sons were valuable and the ultimate sacrifice that could be made was sacrificing one’s son…especially if he was your only son. By making that sacrifice, the family name died, plus a son was so important in so many other ways. Thus, I feel, God had to sacrifice His only Son for two reasons:

  1. He, Jesus, became well known, well loved, He showed people the light (the right way to live to God’s standards). He was important to the people, someone they loved deeply and followed His teachings and strived to live better lives.

2)Jesus was his ultimate sacrifice to the people God loved. Through His love, He called off the debt for the sins committed. With this “Shock and Awe” act, He called attention to the people to change.

The world has changed through the centuries. We, here in the United States, debate capitol punishment, while centuries ago, it was nothing to execute criminals for lesser crimes than murder. We are brought up to be kinder to each other. We no longer have slaves. The list can go on and on because we saw the fairness in better ways. There is still unfairness in the world, we are not perfect; we are still sinners. But see the comparisons from centuries ago to today.

So: is it evolution? OR is it trying to live up to the commandments God told us we must live by? Through the centuries have we improved ourselves in trying to live up to His standards?

31

I may have the wrong verse in mind, or you may have a translation that says it differently, but in most, His words are rather subtle there :

Matthew 19:16-17 :

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [sup]17[/sup]And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)

v. 17 in RSV : And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

So he doesn’t say “Don’t call me go[o]d” in so many words. I can’t think if there’s a specific instance where Jesus denies divinity, although he seemed rather Socratically ironic about it even with his disciples. It does seem at times he wishes to avoid either the implication of arrogance and madness, or a premature arrest. This suggests that even He may have had some concern with the Lewisian trichotomy!

This may be a partial explanation of why there isn’t so much direct evidence from Jesus himself.

It’s important not to overlook that it rests on the major assumption that the words are correct and not later amendments by others. I think Lewis himself tries to obfuscate this in his conclusion, granted he was giving a persuasive talk as much as a rational argument.

32

I guess it depends on how you read the passage. I would point out that I did not say Jesus denied his divinity. I said he put God on a higher level.

33

Please don’t hate me. But I am trying to be serious about Jesus Christ and still be functional with my intellect. Here goes:

If I were Jesus Christ, I don’t mind having a crucifixion every morning or every four days. Anyway I am God and I can continue on and on, and besides I can do simultaneous multitasking in other parts of the universe.

Susma Rio Sep

Postscript: Of course I take Jesus Christ seriously and I pray to Him, all in this script of a life in the real world which is a lot of script. Who was that, Skakesperare, “All the world is a stage…” You don’t have to be a Shakespeare to have that suspicion and reality seep into your intelligent consciousness.

Trying to be funny, am I?

34

Susma, look up the term kenosis (it’s Greek, and a technical term in theology), with the literal meaning of “emptying.”

In short, it means that Jesus, maintaining His role as God the Son, nonetheless “emptied” Himself of virtually all the knowledge and power that went with that role, in order that He might be truly human, trusting the Father by faith and not by intellectual certitude, and that therefore He went to His death believing, as opposed to knowing, in the Resurrection – just as we will go to our own deaths in the same hope. (See Philippians 2 for a Scriptural basis for this line of thought.)

Ergo, it was not a simple “live through the torture and spend a couple nights in the grave, and it’ll be all over on Sunday” for Him – He had to put ultimate trust in God’s power to overcome what humans see as the end, and that what He did would in fact be worthwhile.