Biggest Problem of Christianity (Vicarious Redemption)

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

God says He's merciful. If you let some people get out of punishment and others don't, then justice becomes a farce.

By His justice.

Jesus said those who call people fools will go to hell. He and other biblical authors must necessarily be burning at this very moment, because "justice", right?

Yeah, Christianity's salvation theology never made any sense to me even as a Christian. None of the different ways of viewing it make sense. It's really just excusing human sacrifice and makes God look nasty.

And the people who believe in this most strongly don't believe they're going to hell. God is supposed to break the rules of justice for them.

Oh, He could break them but then He would not be righteous. If He were not righteous He would not be fit to judge man.

When rapists go free in the bible and people who wear blended fabrics are doomed to hell, I'd say God has really terrible priorities.

I don't understand why people always see death as a "punishment."

Attachment to the impermanent.

Our own secular courts would never claim to "love" either the plaintiff nor the defendant. Can you imagine how we'd think of the courts if they started off by stating that they "loved" both sides? In order to be justice in the first place, it has to be as impartial as possible.

The US courts love to give mercy to certain people while crucifying others for the same exact crimes. It's upsetting. It's also upsetting when God does it.

If Jesus had not been resurrected then one could claim that God was cruel and that vicarious redemption mattered nothing but that's not how the story goes. Jesus wins in the end.

Reminds me of Jack Sparrow telling Davy Jones (sorry, CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow) that he fulfilled his debt by dying. Jones retorts that he came back, so he didn't.

I see love as: teaching, example, learning, communication, expression, being one. There is no need for "justice" in a enviornment of love.

Indeed. Justice wouldn't be necessary had love been applied first. Justice is a failure of doing the right thing on both sides.

So, you see, sometimes that at which seems like bad fortune can be good fortune.

It's against the law to take in wild animals. Wouldn't want justice to be ignored, right?

Teaching a child what he did wrong helps him understand why he is disciplined. He wont be left in the dark. Justice doesnt teach. It makes one a slave to living "correctly" ratber than a desire to live in a loving family.

Education and redirection should be the first solutions. Justice is for those too lazy to do "parenting" right the first time. When society governs in a way that makes people feel desperate enough to kill or steal, justice would be fixing the government, not blaming the victim of oppression.

Good luck with all that. The world around me is radically different.

The Effects of Positive Teaching on Success in Children’s Learning

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.22002/full

The biggest issue with punishment, per Skinner:

There are many problems with using punishment, such as:

• Punished behavior is not forgotten, it's suppressed - behavior returns when punishment is no longer present.
  
  
• Causes increased aggression - shows that aggression is a way to cope with problems.
  
  
• Creates fear that can generalize to undesirable behaviors, e.g., fear of school.
  
  
• Does not necessarily guide toward desired behavior - reinforcement tells you what to do, punishment only tells you what not to do.

If God has a decent IQ over His creations, surely He knows how the human mind works. To punish is to ensure lawbreaking.

That's the world we ACTUALLY live in.

Are you following for god only because he is just?

I doubt Sandy thinks hell is where he's going, so if that's the case, he doesn't want God to be as just as he wants for everyone else.

Now, if Sandy is mature and accepts responsibility for actions and decides that yes, hell is the appropriate solution for his life, I won't say a thing. It's at least a concept I can respect.

1. God did not torture Jesus to death, Jews did.

Romans did. He died for essentially being ISIS or Al-Queada in their minds. Give it a hundred years and there might be a religion out of Osama Bin Laden as well. Here is a guy who claimed to want to help his people and that they should sacrifice their lives (notably, the leaders always run away, like Jesus, until they finally get caught) and the Evil Roman (American) Empire is out to get them. And we keep taking the bait for their PR stunts like idiots. We bomb innocent people and they go, "you know, Bin Laden had a point". And he becomes their hero for standing up to the Great Satan, and, well, divinity is yet to be seen.

 

[Axe Elf]

Actually, if Jesus and his disciples were planning to radically disrupt the Temple premises based on an expected and imminent end-of-world, then too the supper in the night before would assume significance.

I suppose that is nominally true, but we have no record of that being the case. Rather, we have the record of Jesus telling the disciples that he was about to be betrayed and put to death.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We also have records of Jesus running away from angry people who wanted to kill him. Clearly, he wasn't as into death as he liked to boast about. Martyrdom sounds fun until the bullets start flying.

 

[Vouthon]

Actually, if Jesus and his disciples were planning to radically disrupt the Temple premises based on an expected and imminent end-of-world, then too the supper in the night before would assume significance.

I'm not sure that I would refer to Jesus' apocalypticism as being akin to the more contemporary, Evangelical notion of the "end of the world".

Rather, it was more along the lines of God decisively intervening in the world to end the present corrupt "age" and inaugurate His own Kingdom, where perfect justice would reign.

It is much more "this-worldly" and in the vein of the earlier prophecies by Jewish prophets like Isaiah and Micah which anticipated a utopian future.

The Gospel of John seems to have spiritualized it further with the notion of a Kingdom wholly "not of this world", as did later NT texts.

 

[sayak83]

I suppose that is nominally true, but we have no record of that being the case. Rather, we have the record of Jesus telling the disciples that he was about to be betrayed and put to death.

That requires a belief that the records have not been altered by Easter experiences. I don't have much trust on recollections of highly emotive and traumatic experiences made by highly partisan individuals. The Tryvon Martin incident is a good case in point... on all sides. In such cases, when only partisan testimonies are available, a historian can only document what claims were being made and how those claims affected later actions. Another example is the fire in Rome that was rumored to have been set by Nero.

Of course a Christian can accept the testimony based on assurance from the Spirit if he/she experiences it. But that would be a non-public assurance.. i. e. personal faith.

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure that I would refer to Jesus' apocalypticism as being akin to the more contemporary, Evangelical notion of the "end of the world".

Rather, it was more along the lines of God decisively intervening in the world to end the present corrupt "age" and inaugurate His own Kingdom, where perfect justice would reign.

It is much more "this-worldly" and in the vein of the earlier prophecies by Jewish prophets like Isaiah and Micah which anticipated a utopian future.

Yes. I know. My belief based on reading the NT is that Jesus believed that it would happen when he "intervened" in the Temple and thus purifying it just as he did with the leper. Then God would enter the purified temple and thus decisively intervene in the world. This did not happen, and the disciples fled in dismay. Then a few experienced the "resurrected" Jesus in some way and reconfigured the expectation in a new direction.

 

[Axe Elf]

That requires a belief that the records have not been altered by Easter experiences. I don't have much trust on recollections of highly emotive and traumatic experiences made by highly partisan individuals. The Tryvon Martin incident is a good case in point... on all sides. In such cases, when only partisan testimonies are available, a historian can only document what claims were being made and how those claims affected later actions. Another example is the fire in Rome that was rumored to have been set by Nero.

Of course a Christian can accept the testimony based on assurance from the Spirit if he/she experiences it. But that would be a non-public assurance.. i. e. personal faith.

Well, like I said when I mentioned it, opponents could say that the four gospels were retrofitted later to make it appear that Jesus knew what was about to happen, but that would require that all four gospel authors got together and conspired to fabricate the account in the same way, because the four gospel accounts of the Last Supper are even more synchronized than their accounts of what happened at the tomb during the resurrection itself.

So yeah, obviously the testimony of the Bible is suspect to a non-believer, but it would make sense that the more independent accounts we have of a reported event, the more likely it is that the event is based in reality. And it certainly makes more sense to accept the four independent accounts of the Last Supper than to invent some OTHER account, like your proposal that maybe they were planning some kind of revolutionary event that gave significance to their meal that night, and then suggest that this new account is just as likely as the one recorded in the four gospels.

 

[sayak83]

Well, like I said when I mentioned it, opponents could say that the four gospels were retrofitted later to make it appear that Jesus knew what was about to happen, but that would require that all four gospel authors got together and conspired to fabricate the account in the same way, because the four gospel accounts of the Last Supper are even more synchronized than their accounts of what happened at the tomb during the resurrection itself.

So yeah, obviously the testimony of the Bible is suspect to a non-believer, but it would make sense that the more independent accounts we have of a reported event, the more likely it is that the event is based in reality. And it certainly makes more sense to accept the four independent accounts of the Last Supper than to invent some OTHER account, like your proposal that maybe they were planning some kind of revolutionary event that gave significance to their meal that night, and then suggest that this new account is just as likely as the one recorded in the four gospels.

We know Luke and Matthew used Mark. So those three is one. John is other, which has just passing similarity.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes. I know. My belief based on reading the NT is that Jesus believed that it would happen when he "intervened" in the Temple and thus purifying it just as he did with the leper. Then God would enter the purified temple and thus decisively intervene in the world. This did not happen, and the disciples fled in dismay. Then a few experienced the "resurrected" Jesus in some way and reconfigured the expectation in a new direction.

From the available New Testament scholarship, which I've read over the years, my perception is that the consensus in the field would largely support your interpretation here, with one small caveat mentioned by Professor Larry Hurtado of Edinburgh University:


Why Was Jesus Crucified?

We know from other incidents (as, e.g., reported by Josephus) how the Temple authorities and Roman administration treated people who simply caused a disturbance in the Temple, and it wasn’t crucifixion. Flogging, maybe but not crucifixion. The point of crucifixion wasn’t simply to end a person’s life but, much more, to humiliate and degrade to the extreme, to say “See what this guy got? This is what anyone gets who raises his hand against Rome!”

Pilate was a figure of uncertain character (as my colleague, Helen Bond judges in her book on him), probably not your favorite-uncle type, but he probably knew his job, which was primarily to keep order, keep the Jews in their place, and oversee tax-collection and Roman administration more generally. A hard guy, probably, but not likely someone who crucified people on a whim. He likely took stock of the situation and judged that Jesus had (whatever his intentions) generated what might be an incipient movement that could lead to greater trouble if not nipped in the bud forcefully.

As I’ve put it (in Lord Jesus Christ (esp. 54-56), Jesus rather clearly polarized people over what to make of him. He “quickly became a figure of some notoriety and controversy” (LJC, 55). Though his preaching seems to have focused on “the kingdom of God,” the issue quickly became whether he was or wasn’t the authentic spokesman of that kingdom. And talk of “kingdom” could make ruling authorities worried.

Granted, it also seems likely that the Temple authorities colluded in some way in Jesus’ arrest and execution. After all, the High Priest was appointed by Rome and served as Rome’s pleasure. It would not go well for the Temple authorities if they were seen to ignore someone who seemed to challenge their authority and, by extension, that of Rome.

As I’ve argued (LJC, 54-55), the issue isn’t really what Jesus thought he was or what he intended. It’s very hard to determine someone’s inner intentions and thoughts, after all. The key thing, instead, and the more feasible question, is what effects and resultshis activities had on his contemporaries. Some became his followers, willing to abandon their livelihoods to do so. Others (including some powerful people) judged him dangerous, and eventually decided to move against him with mortal intent. That’s what I’d call polarization!

So, however attractive to our own gentle instincts may be the sort of Jesus touted often, a guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly and just wanted everyone to be friends, we have to posit a Jesus who could get himself crucified. And we should do so without caricatured Jewish leaders and Roman governor, and without invoking some legal goof-up. Instead, probably everyone involved knew what they were doing.


​

Jesus wasn't the first person arrested for staging some kind of protest or civil disturbance in the Temple. But he was the first person we know about who was given the most extreme penalty of crucifixion after having done so. The normal response was flogging. After all, it was the Jewish holy place and most riots were therefore provoked by intra-Jewish conflict between competing factions and sects, which the Roman authorities had little interest in or knowledge of other than to ensure that things didn't spiral out of control.

This tells us that it wasn't just his actions in the Temple that led him to be crucified but what people thought he was intent on doing. The really worrying thing for the Roman authorities, was this talk of a coming kingdom of the Jewish God in which the oppressed would be uplifted and the oppressors cast down. Paired with his attempt to purify the temple of the money-changers, the Romans must have feared an uprising of some sort, as would occur just over thirty years later in reality.

But, as I noted earlier, unlike the later messianic claimant Bar Kokhba who actually did go to war with the Empire, Jesus believed that God was going to be the one to intervene and that his followers should not do anything violent to initiate the kingdom.

And yes, he probably did that think that by means of his action of Temple-cleansing God's Reign would at least be set in motion somehow, as you claim.

 

[sayak83]

From the available New Testament scholarship, which I've read over the years, my perception is that the consensus in the field would largely support your interpretation here, with one small caveat mentioned by Professor Larry Hurtado of Edinburgh University:


Why Was Jesus Crucified?

We know from other incidents (as, e.g., reported by Josephus) how the Temple authorities and Roman administration treated people who simply caused a disturbance in the Temple, and it wasn’t crucifixion. Flogging, maybe but not crucifixion. The point of crucifixion wasn’t simply to end a person’s life but, much more, to humiliate and degrade to the extreme, to say “See what this guy got? This is what anyone gets who raises his hand against Rome!”

Pilate was a figure of uncertain character (as my colleague, Helen Bond judges in her book on him), probably not your favorite-uncle type, but he probably knew his job, which was primarily to keep order, keep the Jews in their place, and oversee tax-collection and Roman administration more generally. A hard guy, probably, but not likely someone who crucified people on a whim. He likely took stock of the situation and judged that Jesus had (whatever his intentions) generated what might be an incipient movement that could lead to greater trouble if not nipped in the bud forcefully.

As I’ve put it (in Lord Jesus Christ (esp. 54-56), Jesus rather clearly polarized people over what to make of him. He “quickly became a figure of some notoriety and controversy” (LJC, 55). Though his preaching seems to have focused on “the kingdom of God,” the issue quickly became whether he was or wasn’t the authentic spokesman of that kingdom. And talk of “kingdom” could make ruling authorities worried.

Granted, it also seems likely that the Temple authorities colluded in some way in Jesus’ arrest and execution. After all, the High Priest was appointed by Rome and served as Rome’s pleasure. It would not go well for the Temple authorities if they were seen to ignore someone who seemed to challenge their authority and, by extension, that of Rome.

As I’ve argued (LJC, 54-55), the issue isn’t really what Jesus thought he was or what he intended. It’s very hard to determine someone’s inner intentions and thoughts, after all. The key thing, instead, and the more feasible question, is what effects and resultshis activities had on his contemporaries. Some became his followers, willing to abandon their livelihoods to do so. Others (including some powerful people) judged him dangerous, and eventually decided to move against him with mortal intent. That’s what I’d call polarization!

So, however attractive to our own gentle instincts may be the sort of Jesus touted often, a guy who wouldn’t hurt a fly and just wanted everyone to be friends, we have to posit a Jesus who could get himself crucified. And we should do so without caricatured Jewish leaders and Roman governor, and without invoking some legal goof-up. Instead, probably everyone involved knew what they were doing.


​

Jesus wasn't the first person arrested for staging some kind of protest or civil disturbance in the Temple. But he was the first person we know about who was given the most extreme penalty of crucifixion after having done so. The normal response was flogging. After all, it was the Jewish holy place and most riots were therefore provoked by intra-Jewish conflict between competing factions and sects, which the Roman authorities had little interest in or knowledge of other than to ensure that things didn't spiral out of control.

This tells us that it wasn't just his actions in the Temple that led him to be crucified but what people thought he was intent on doing. The really worrying thing for the Roman authorities, was this talk of a coming kingdom of the Jewish God in which the oppressed would be uplifted and the oppressors cast down. Paired with his attempt to purify the temple of the money-changers, the Romans must have feared an uprising of some sort, as would occur just over thirty years later in reality.

But, as I noted earlier, unlike the later messianic claimant Bar Kokhba who actually did go to war with the Empire, Jesus believed that God was going to be the one to intervene and that his followers should not do anything violent to initiate the kingdom.

And yes, he probably did that think that by means of his action of Temple-cleansing God's Reign would at least be set in motion somehow, as you claim.

It is possible that Jesus did proclaim that he was the king of the Jews and the rightful high priest of the cleansed temple (traces of Qumran like claims?) as the NT does mention the charge under which Jesus was crucified (King of the Jews). But this is speculating.

 

[Vouthon]

It is possible that Jesus did proclaim that he was the king of the Jews and the rightful high priest of the cleansed temple (traces of Qumran like claims?) as the NT does mention the charge under which Jesus was crucified (King of the Jews). But this is speculating.

My own personal opinion (and its just my personal opinion) is that he might not have claimed to be a king or high priest. Note that he spoke of the coming of "God's Kingdom". It would be rule by God, not men.

But it was the fact of proclaiming that kingdom's imminent advent, paired with the Temple action, that I and others think provoked the very harsh response of the authorities. Undoubtedly, he saw himself as the divinely appointed agent in some form through which God would began to establish His reign on earth "as it is in heaven" but it was definitely God's kingship that he was proclaiming.

I see no evidence that he expected himself to be ruling, indeed he explicitly stated in the Markan tradition how the Son of Man came "to serve, not to be served" and I would assume he interpreted his proclamation of the kingdom as the ultimate in service to others. Also, he explicitly condemned kings lording it over their subjects:

Matthew 20

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve
​

There is a sense of He and His disciples exercising some kind of judgement role, though (i.e. over the twelve tribes of Israel), in God's Kingdom.

I think that the idea of Jesus seated on a glorious divine throne emerged after his death from post-resurrection visions of him sharing in God's glory in heaven, as experienced by his disciples.

But I agree that we'll never truly know for sure, there is scholarly debate over whether he ever made a claim to be the Davidic Messiah himself and I've seen persuasive evidence arguing both ways.

 

[Truthseeker]

Right, and as the OP stated- it isn't just to punish someone else for the crime. According to Christianity (typical orthodoxy): God has done so not once, but twice.

God has made Jesus take the sins of everyone allegedly, which I very much doubt. He has also, according to the usual theory of Christians: made all humankind take consequences for the sins of Adam.

Besides being unjust- this is in very contradiction to the Hebrew Bible, but I don't think that'll bother Christians very much. The Hebrew Bible is only useful in as far it agrees with the New Testament, right?

Christians could just admit they took sin and made it into something Jews never thought it was- with much more far-reaching, cosmological implications.

Sin has become a collective force under the Christian worldview, where under the Jewish one it was merely missing the mark. Sin has it's own reality within Christianity.

I don't think even the new testament says that. It's something the Christians has misinterprete..

 

[sealchan]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

There is a lot of Christian believing that is wrapped up in a security blanket compensating for fear and a history of abuse at the hands of the world and its less than holy enactors. That is, in an effort to self-comfort, people are turning their understanding of God and the Bible to a simplistic, childish view that God is a loving, rule-making parent who enforces justice and that that is an ideal under which we can all live safe and secure and not have to worry too much about ourselves.

Unfortunately, such blanket hugging attitudes are constantly beset by ideas and facts which threaten to tug or to rip that security blanket out of their grasp. Those who cling to such warm, fuzzy thoughts should, perhaps, recognize their fragility and seek to build up their strength of faith before they preach to others. Then they could set aside childish ways and be a better point of reference for understanding God, the Bible and the actual reality of the Universe and world in which we all live.

The main difficulty, which both the story of Adam and Even and the story of Job address is how to understand God's desire for us to be agents of morality in an amoral reality that God created. If we have a belief in our fundamental weakness and inability, then we have to either blindly believe that God is just or we have to worry that our heavenly dad isn't really practicing what He is preaching. However, if we see ourselves as partners with God, as His representatives, then we are empowered to correct injustice and to suffer gladly for the sake of peace, mutual respect and openness to change borders into bridges so to speak.

Perhaps the reason why the birth, death and resurrection of God does not sit well with many in Western cultures is because our religious cultural inheritance is of a story about the relationship between God and His people with an emphasis on He. The cycle of birth, death and rebirth is a universal mythic theme that is primarily associated with the Feminine or Mother Goddess tradition. When a very patriarchal religion tries to subsume such a theme outside of the matriarchal context, you are left with a paradox that the masculine attitude will find impossible to resolve.

The masculine mode of consciousness or ego development attempts to align and secure all forms of energy (power) with itself as the center. It is a primarily separating attitude toward self-identity and is competitive in nature when it comes to making decisions or resolving conflicts with others. The feminine mode of consciousness involves sharing all forms of energy with one's group as the center and itself as a member of that group. It is a primarily connecting attitude when it comes to self-identity and is cooperative in nature when it comes to making decisions or resolving conflicts with others. All of us, individually, are an expression of both the masculine and feminine mode of conscious development.

The birth, death, rebirth cycle makes a deep, intuitive sense if you understand that one's personal desires and goals often undergo an awakening, then frustration, then later re-realization in the context of a greater unity. This is the artist's process of spiritual creativity. This is the experience of anyone who holds onto themselves while they brave the sea of the needs of all others.

Jesus comes into the very patriarchal religion of authority and power and rules and tells us, use your heart and wisdom and think again about how you are coldly following these rules. He doesn't dismiss the rules, he upholds them but he reminds us that our first strong response often needs to be checked. We need to get a grip on ourselves internally, psychologically and then allow God to move us forward with faith to His solution. This is a very feminine attitude toward spirituality that is in stark contrast to the rule-based system that had developed in Jesus' time.

Think of the Beatitudes of Matthew's gospel, they are all, to the last, inner psychological attitudes which promote yielding the strength of the individual to the needs or interests or conditions of others. They are about giving up power, not holding onto it. These Beatitudes read like a list of the commandments but I do not think they are given as much attention as they should by most patriarchially oriented believers. This is because they do not make us feel safe and strong but weak and vulnerable and especially to those close to us who have the most potential to thwart the strength and respect for our own voices.

Now if we look at Jesus being a sub-stitutionary sacrifice for the sins of others, what we have is a very common-place human experience that we can all understand. It is the experience of the individual allowing themselves to be defeated before finding their way toward a victory or salvation of their needs being met. It is the feminine principle in play in the psyche of all people. It is the deeply needed balance to a patriarchal order that says "the rules are the rules" and forgets that the rules are limited in considering the full context for any action by a society who means to judge that action. Listening, reflecting, waiting are required before just action can be taken. Walk a mile, give them your cloak, etc...

Now this story of Jesus is to say that the Christian God is the God of both the masculine and feminine attitudes. This is understood as such in the spirit and not in the pseudo-rational way I have tried to explain it here. It is not rational but irrational. It is a fact of our psychological experience and not a principle derived from logical reasoning. But it may be a principle derived from reasoning about values in a multi-individual society with differing perspectives that are sincere but in conflict. it requires a process, a communication and a halting of the self until the righteous answer is revealed and fulfilled. It is jesus trying to get us to be more balanced with the psyche but it is also, historically, the church falling back into the patriarchal attitude that says women should be silent in church, follow their husbands as they in turn follow God and ban them from preaching or leading churches.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

My own personal opinion (and its just my personal opinion) is that he might not have claimed to be a king or high priest. Note that he spoke of the coming of "God's Kingdom". It would be rule by God, not men.

But it was the fact of proclaiming that kingdom's imminent advent, paired with the Temple action, that I and others think provoked the very harsh response of the authorities. Undoubtedly, he saw himself as the divinely appointed agent in some form through which God would began to establish His reign on earth "as it is in heaven" but it was definitely God's kingship that he was proclaiming.

I see no evidence that he expected himself to be ruling, indeed he explicitly stated in the Markan tradition how the Son of Man came "to serve, not to be served" and I would assume he interpreted his proclamation of the kingdom as the ultimate in service to others.

Precisely. And that fits with the idea that Jesus, assuming an enormous mantle of faith, led a band of armed followers to take and cleanse the Temple for God. But God was a no show, so many or most of Jesus' followers (Judas and Peter inc.?), knowing how the Romans would look upon this action, turned on him, leaving him to be condemned to be crucified with a few of his followers, to wonder from the cross why God abandoned him--just another victim of the indoctrination by "revealed" religion.

There is a sense of He and His disciples exercising some kind of judgement role, though (i.e. over the twelve tribes of Israel), in God's Kingdom.

I think that the idea of Jesus seated on a glorious divine throne emerged after his death from post-resurrection visions of him sharing in God's glory in heaven, as experienced by his disciples.

But I agree that we'll never truly know for sure, there is scholarly debate over whether he ever made a claim to be the Davidic Messiah himself and I've seen persuasive evidence arguing both ways.

I think its supposed to be both ways, David, or his heir, ruling in the name of a higher authority. But with an empty Temple...[/QUOTE]

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I don't think even the new testament says that. It's something the Christians has misinterprete..

Perhaps it is, but original sin is probably the direct result of Paul's idea that sin entered the world through Adam. Either the way Paul presented it, emphasized it, or he really thought something like original sin was true. I won't try to guess which.

It would also lend to being more Pauline, when considered that Augustine was very favorable to Paul and influenced by his works. Augustine devoted much time to Pauline exegesis.

 

[james bond]

You should take some university courses in comparative religious studies. You'd be surprised how often students don't understand their own religion, don't know the facts, etc. Doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's a Hindu not understanding Hinduism or a Jew not understanding Judaism.

Partly, it seems to be a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.

So, you impart your wisdom from comparative religious studies?

I would think more believers understand their religions than misunderstand. I can only speak for Christians since I haven't looked at other religions like you, but Christians have Bible study small groups, Bible study software and apps for notebooks, tablets and phones and Biblical interpretation forums as well as social media. I would think other religions have the same type of products.

I couldn't find the exact question you pose, but here's a Pew survey on how Americans view Jews and Christians. If there were conflicting messages (and I'm not saying there aren't) they are in the minority. Most see religious persons as positive people.

Survey: Americans view Jews, Christians warmly

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It is possible that Jesus did proclaim that he was the king of the Jews and the rightful high priest of the cleansed temple (traces of Qumran like claims?) as the NT does mention the charge under which Jesus was crucified (King of the Jews). But this is speculating.

I've always doubted that Jesus claimed to be a king, but I'm not a Christian, so that leaves you and I more free to speculate about additional discrepancies in the texts. The gospels say the people tried to make Jesus king, but he resisted it.

John 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

We might also note that it is claimed Jesus wouldn't answer Pilate a word about being king. He answered to being the messiah only, in the gospels that put him in that role. Mark is less certain than even that.

The narratives as presented make it sound like Jesus might have been wrongly interpreted.

Then there is the matter of Jesus telling people to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

[sayak83]

I've always doubted that Jesus claimed to be a king, but I'm not a Christian, so that leaves you and I more free to speculate about additional discrepancies in the texts. The gospels say the people tried to make Jesus king, but he resisted it.

John 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

We might also note that it is claimed Jesus wouldn't answer Pilate a word about being king. He answered to being the messiah only, in the gospels that put him in that role. Mark is less certain than even that.

The narratives as presented make it sound like Jesus might have been wrongly interpreted.

Then there is the matter of Jesus telling people to give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

The trial descriptions are not very trustworthy. The disciples were in chaos then, and the narrative was probably mostly rumors and pious fiction. Apart from Jesus being brought before the Romans and then crucified, very little is likely authentic.

But I will check on that.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

We also have records of Jesus running away from angry people who wanted to kill him. Clearly, he wasn't as into death as he liked to boast about. Martyrdom sounds fun until the bullets start flying.

Yes I often point that out to Christians that play up the atonement scenario as Jesus doing it for them. You know, the ones that get really ridiculously romantic about it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

God did not torture Jesus to death, Jews did.

Thomas Paine observed in the Age of Reason that if Jesus only came to die, a fever could have brought that about much more quickly and ultimately painlessly than crucifixion. If God chose not to do so, and let a crucifixion go on for what Christians claim is 'the sins of the world'- sorry to tell you that God can't be blameless for the torture and such.