Was there ever even the slightest chance of failure?

[beenherebeforeagain]

The recent thread on how much you disbelieve in God thread touched off a line of thought in me...

It's interesting to me that this line of thought was actually one of the first things I realized after my born-again experience, which occurred while I was 12. It has been present in my thinking ever since, and is a good portion of the reason for ceasing to be a Christian and eventually becoming an agnostic.

It seems fairly obvious (and defensible in scripture) that Jesus' passion and resurrection is both a sacrifice for atonement (as of a lamb), as well as a sacrifice of a scapegoat. Okay, fine and good.

The question is, was there ever even the slightest, tiniest, minuscule possibility that Jesus' sacrifice would have failed, that he would not have 'conquered death' and risen again on the third day?

I don't see any chance of that being able to happen. After all, if Jesus is the Son of God, fully backed by his Father, the omnimax creator deity of the cosmos, what is the chance that the gambit would fail? That Jesus would have died just like billions of other humans, who also would not be resurrected on the third day.

As far as I can see from the Book (and all the interpretations that have explained it), no chance of failure at all.

In which case, all Jesus engaged in was a magic ritual, just like the priests in the Temple...

And the question is, what is the meaning of a magic ritual that cannot fail? What is the counterfactual situation, that is, what would have happened if the passion had happened, and the resurrection had not occurred? Was there REALLY any sacrifice, if he he couldn't fail, couldn't really die and stay dead? What does it mean that Jesus could not have failed?

I continue to wrestle with the question from time to time.

although this is in a debate forum, I really am not interested in hearing lots of citations from scripture about how and why Jesus couldn't have failed...yeah, I get it...been there, done that, got the t-shirt and wore it out. But if he couldn't have failed, what was the point? What meaning can a sacrifice that could not fail have?

 

[Muffled]

The recent thread on how much you disbelieve in God thread touched off a line of thought in me...

It's interesting to me that this line of thought was actually one of the first things I realized after my born-again experience, which occurred while I was 12. It has been present in my thinking ever since, and is a good portion of the reason for ceasing to be a Christian and eventually becoming an agnostic.

It seems fairly obvious (and defensible in scripture) that Jesus' passion and resurrection is both a sacrifice for atonement (as of a lamb), as well as a sacrifice of a scapegoat. Okay, fine and good.

The question is, was there ever even the slightest, tiniest, minuscule possibility that Jesus' sacrifice would have failed, that he would not have 'conquered death' and risen again on the third day?

I don't see any chance of that being able to happen. After all, if Jesus is the Son of God, fully backed by his Father, the omnimax creator deity of the cosmos, what is the chance that the gambit would fail? That Jesus would have died just like billions of other humans, who also would not be resurrected on the third day.

As far as I can see from the Book (and all the interpretations that have explained it), no chance of failure at all.

In which case, all Jesus engaged in was a magic ritual, just like the priests in the Temple...

And the question is, what is the meaning of a magic ritual that cannot fail? What is the counterfactual situation, that is, what would have happened if the passion had happened, and the resurrection had not occurred? Was there REALLY any sacrifice, if he he couldn't fail, couldn't really die and stay dead? What does it mean that Jesus could not have failed?

I continue to wrestle with the question from time to time.

although this is in a debate forum, I really am not interested in hearing lots of citations from scripture about how and why Jesus couldn't have failed...yeah, I get it...been there, done that, got the t-shirt and wore it out. But if he couldn't have failed, what was the point? What meaning can a sacrifice that could not fail have?

It serves its purpose.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It serves its purpose.

How so?

 

[Tomef]

The recent thread on how much you disbelieve in God thread touched off a line of thought in me...

It's interesting to me that this line of thought was actually one of the first things I realized after my born-again experience, which occurred while I was 12. It has been present in my thinking ever since, and is a good portion of the reason for ceasing to be a Christian and eventually becoming an agnostic.

It seems fairly obvious (and defensible in scripture) that Jesus' passion and resurrection is both a sacrifice for atonement (as of a lamb), as well as a sacrifice of a scapegoat. Okay, fine and good.

The question is, was there ever even the slightest, tiniest, minuscule possibility that Jesus' sacrifice would have failed, that he would not have 'conquered death' and risen again on the third day?

I don't see any chance of that being able to happen. After all, if Jesus is the Son of God, fully backed by his Father, the omnimax creator deity of the cosmos, what is the chance that the gambit would fail? That Jesus would have died just like billions of other humans, who also would not be resurrected on the third day.

As far as I can see from the Book (and all the interpretations that have explained it), no chance of failure at all.

In which case, all Jesus engaged in was a magic ritual, just like the priests in the Temple...

And the question is, what is the meaning of a magic ritual that cannot fail? What is the counterfactual situation, that is, what would have happened if the passion had happened, and the resurrection had not occurred? Was there REALLY any sacrifice, if he he couldn't fail, couldn't really die and stay dead? What does it mean that Jesus could not have failed?

I continue to wrestle with the question from time to time.

although this is in a debate forum, I really am not interested in hearing lots of citations from scripture about how and why Jesus couldn't have failed...yeah, I get it...been there, done that, got the t-shirt and wore it out. But if he couldn't have failed, what was the point? What meaning can a sacrifice that could not fail have?

Maybe that’s why someone included the passage about Jesus praying in Gethsemane, to indicate there was a struggle involved, a test he could have failed.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Maybe that’s why someone included the passage about Jesus praying in Gethsemane, to indicate there was a struggle involved, a test he could have failed.

But as we read through the versions in Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John, he appears to be less and less troubled, and in John he's in full control through the entire process, as if he can't fail...

 

[Tomef]

But as we read through the versions in Mark, Matthew, Luke and finally John, he appears to be less and less troubled, and in John he's in full control through the entire process, as if he can't fail...

Developing doctrine I suppose. Or just different notions the different writers had. John is more focused on the ‘spiritual realm’ and from that perspective it would seem a foregone conclusion. There are examples of Jesus apparently making choices against his will for the sake of others though, as with his mother pestering him into wine making, Lazarus’s sisters asking him to act for them etc. The overall impression is that Jesus the man had choices, but always made the ‘right’ choice. It does say that he was ‘tempted’ in the wilderness, which implies the possibility of making different choices.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Developing doctrine I suppose. Or just different notions the different writers had. John is more focused on the ‘spiritual realm’ and from that perspective it would seem a foregone conclusion. There are examples of Jesus apparently making choices against his will for the sake of others though, as with his mother pestering him into wine making, Lazarus’s sisters asking him to act for them etc. The overall impression is that Jesus the man had choices, but always made the ‘right’ choice. It does say that he was ‘tempted’ in the wilderness, which implies the possibility of making different choices.

I suppose if he had made any of those other choices, he wouldn't have succeeded, and there wouldn't be a religion established around him...God would have had to try with someone else...

 

[Tomef]

I suppose if he had made any of those other choices, he wouldn't have succeeded, and there wouldn't be a religion established around him...God would have had to try with someone else...

Well it’s a story mostly concocted after the fact, so from that perspective it’s quite well put together. Die Hard wouldn’t be so well-loved a movie if McCain got shot in the face at the end.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I continue to wrestle with the question from time to time.

It's why I saw Jesus had one lousy weekend. What did he really sacrifice? He knew what was to happen and how it would play out, and unlike us regular mortals it wasn't faith but knowledge of what happens after death, including being all healed up from it.
That's more like some rich wanker who misses the point and decides to give it all up and "start from the ground up." They already have the knowledge and connections to make success more likely and they know when their little experiment is done they'll still have their riches and comfort to return to.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe that’s why someone included the passage about Jesus praying in Gethsemane, to indicate there was a struggle involved, a test he could have failed.

That isn't indicated and you must assume that.
There's a bit of a struggle when I get a new piercing. I know it'll ve fine, but it still hurts. It's the same for surgery.

 

[PureX]

I

The recent thread on how much you disbelieve in God thread touched off a line of thought in me...

It's interesting to me that this line of thought was actually one of the first things I realized after my born-again experience, which occurred while I was 12. It has been present in my thinking ever since, and is a good portion of the reason for ceasing to be a Christian and eventually becoming an agnostic.

It seems fairly obvious (and defensible in scripture) that Jesus' passion and resurrection is both a sacrifice for atonement (as of a lamb), as well as a sacrifice of a scapegoat. Okay, fine and good.

The question is, was there ever even the slightest, tiniest, minuscule possibility that Jesus' sacrifice would have failed, that he would not have 'conquered death' and risen again on the third day?

I don't see any chance of that being able to happen. After all, if Jesus is the Son of God, fully backed by his Father, the omnimax creator deity of the cosmos, what is the chance that the gambit would fail? That Jesus would have died just like billions of other humans, who also would not be resurrected on the third day.

As far as I can see from the Book (and all the interpretations that have explained it), no chance of failure at all.

In which case, all Jesus engaged in was a magic ritual, just like the priests in the Temple...

And the question is, what is the meaning of a magic ritual that cannot fail? What is the counterfactual situation, that is, what would have happened if the passion had happened, and the resurrection had not occurred? Was there REALLY any sacrifice, if he he couldn't fail, couldn't really die and stay dead? What does it mean that Jesus could not have failed?

I continue to wrestle with the question from time to time.

although this is in a debate forum, I really am not interested in hearing lots of citations from scripture about how and why Jesus couldn't have failed...yeah, I get it...been there, done that, got the t-shirt and wore it out. But if he couldn't have failed, what was the point? What meaning can a sacrifice that could not fail have?

I think you have taken on a very literal interpretation of the NT that has been derived from a lot of fallible human interpretation and translation and imagination.

First, bear in mind that within the culture and society that Jesus lived (patriarchal family clans), the son(s) of a family patriarch were considered a proxy for the patriarch himself. Promises made by the sons were as binding as if they had been made by their father. Directives given by the sons were considered the equal of directives given by their father. The point, here, being that Jesus was being called "the son of God" because the people that were calling him that believed that he spoke and acted as a proxy for God. That the spiritual revelation and promise that Jesus spoke of were coming to us from God, through him. It did not, however, mean he was a God, himself. Nor did it mean he possessed the wisdom, will, or power of God himself. What they meant by it was that he was a human proxy for God's divine message, and God's divine will for us.

And we (humanity) brutally killed him for it. Because we didn't want to hear this divine message and promise from God. We wanted to keep doing things 'our way'. THIS was the sacrifice Jesus made FOR US. And it was a sacrifice he made BECAUSE OF US. WE crucified him. Not God. And many of us are still trying to kill the revelation and promise that Jesus brought to humanity, because we still don't want to hear it. We still want to do things 'our own way'.

But the revelation and promise still stands (lives): the revelation and promise that God's divine spirit of love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity lives within each of us, as we are God's creations. And that if we will set aside our own selfish fear, and egotism, and desire to control everything and everyone, and we allow this spirit within us to become us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves. And when enough of us choose this path, the whole world will be healed and saved from us. And "Eden" will be restored.

None of this is about any "magical rituals" or "inevitable results". None of this is about God demanding some murderous sacrifice. It's just a story about how God gave humanity a divine revelation, and a promise of hope. And about how humanity responded to it. ... How humanity is still responding to it. Leaving us all to ask ourselves, "how am I responding to it?"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It does say that he was ‘tempted’ in the wilderness, which implies the possibility of making different choices.

Not necessarily. It could just mean he's honest about his humanity and not lying about it like many do.
But temptation doesn't necessarily mean you'll do it. Every now and then I get tempted to have and crave a cigarette. But it's just that amd easy to overcome as it's been many years since I've had one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And we (humanity) brutally killed him for it.

Do keep your "we" to yourself. Some of us are against the death penalty and are terribly sensitive to real violence. Not many, especially those who aren't Abrahamics, are trying to kill your Jesus. Tons of people even overlook, ingore and dismiss the garbage and bagage attached to him and way overhype his moral teachings.

And we (humanity) brutally killed him for it. Because we didn't want to hear his divine message and promise from God. We wanted to keep doing things 'our way'. THIS was the sacrifice Jesus made FOR US. And is was a sacrifice he made BECAUSE OF US. WE crucified him. Not God. And many of us are still trying to kill the Christ's revelation and promise that Jesus brought to humanity, because we still don't want to hear it. We still want to do thing 'our way'.

That's the same attitude that dismisses apostates because we "just wanted to sin."
As well as the attitude of American Evangelicals who scream they are persecuted here.
It also ignores why some people object to the Bible, including it revolving around a god so violent and and bloodthirsty that he sent his own son to be tortured to death. He didn't have to, there was no reason for that, he can do anything but he chose to do that.

 

[Soandso]

I will say, the story of Jesus is giving strong Mary Sue vibes. No real character growth and no real chance at losing. We even get a description of his super cool and totally original OC in revelation. He's the ultimate DM NPC

 

[Wandering Monk]

I suppose if he had made any of those other choices, he wouldn't have succeeded, and there wouldn't be a religion established around him...God would have had to try with someone else...

But it was God who decided the rules on sin and atonement. Why couldn't he have had a different set of rules? And who asks to be born under these rules wherein one may be tortured forever?

Paul says the wages of sin is death. We all sin, we all die. Why the post-mortem torture?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I

I think you have taken on a very literal interpretation of the NT that has been derived from a lot of fallible human interpretation and translation and imagination.

First, bear in mind that within the culture and society that Jesus lived (patriarchal family clans), the son(s) of a family patriarch were considered a proxy for the patriarch himself. Promises made by the sons were as binding as if they had been made by their father. Directives given by the sons were considered the equal of directives given by their father. The point, here, being that Jesus was being called "the son of God" because the people that were calling him that believed that he spoke and acted as a proxy for God. That the spiritual revelation and promise that Jesus spoke of were coming to us from God, through him. It did not, however, mean he was a God, himself. Nor did it mean he possessed the wisdom, will, or power of God himself. What they meant by it was that he was a human proxy for God's divine message, and God's divine will for us.

And we (humanity) brutally killed him for it. Because we didn't want to hear this divine message and promise from God. We wanted to keep doing things 'our way'. THIS was the sacrifice Jesus made FOR US. And it was a sacrifice he made BECAUSE OF US. WE crucified him. Not God. And many of us are still trying to kill the revelation and promise that Jesus brought to humanity, because we still don't want to hear it. We still want to do things 'our own way'.

But the revelation and promise still stands (lives): the revelation and promise that God's divine spirit of love and forgiveness and kindness and generosity lives within each of us, as we are God's creations. And that if we will set aside our own selfish fear, and egotism, and desire to control everything and everyone, and we allow this spirit within us to become us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves. And when enough of us choose this path, the whole world will be healed and saved from us. And "Eden" will be restored.

None of this is about any "magical rituals" or "inevitable results". None of this is about God demanding some murderous sacrifice. It's just a story about how God gave humanity a divine revelation, and a promise of hope. And about how humanity responded to it. ... How humanity is still responding to it. Leaving us all to ask ourselves, "how am I responding to it?"

Okay, so it wasn't a literal sacrifice...

So, even metaphorically, there was no chance of failure, right? It's all about US HUMANS FAILING and a deity that was not really offering themselves up (even in a figurative manner) in a situation where HE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE FAILED ON HIS PART.

And of course the story of the passion and resurrection are about magic...a symbolic action to affect conditions in reality...

Or, of course, if the effects of the sacrifice are also symbolic rather than actual, then what is the purpose, really, if it corresponds to nothing in reality but a mythological story?

 

[sun rise]

was there ever even the slightest, tiniest, minuscule possibility that Jesus' sacrifice would have failed,

How would we know?

That's more like some rich wanker

Forget about Jesus and ask yourself "if someone voluntarily endures great suffering for the benefit of others, how can that be 'like some rich wanker'"? There are endless times when someone quite ordinary from outward appearances did just that. You can not believe that Jesus was anything but an ordinary man, but the story of times when someone has sacrificed by others is inspiring, at least to me.

 

[PureX]

Okay, so it wasn't a literal sacrifice...

So, even metaphorically, there was no chance of failure, right?

What is the "failure" here? Is it our refusal to listen to listen to the messenger? Is it our failure to take the message to heart? How is any of this Jesus' fault? Jesus delivered and embodied the message to us, even as he was being tortured and murdered for it. So now you want to cheapen that sacrifice by claiming he couldn't have avoided it? Or by claiming he couldn't have broke and cursed his murderers rather than forgive them? Why are you looking for an excuse to cheapen the courage and sacrifice of this extraordinary man, Jesus of Nazareth, in the story?

It's all about US HUMANS FAILING and a deity that was not really offering themselves up (even in a figurative manner) in a situation where HE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE FAILED ON HIS PART.

Jesus was not a "deity". I think this is why you are going so off track, here. Jesus not only did not claim to be God, he repeatedly disavowed that claim when it was pushed on him. He most certainly could have "failed" to fully embody the message and promise of God's love, forgiveness, and salvation, in the face of such extreme suffering. As anyone could. But he didn't. That's the whole point of the story. He didn't.

And of course the story of the passion and resurrection are about magic...a symbolic action to affect conditions in reality...

It's a STORY. Told and retold by human beings that were not there. So of course those human beings exaggerated it for effect. Or did they? We donlt know, because we weren't there, either.

None of this matters. What matters is the divine message and the promise that the story is delivering TO US, NOW. And how are WE going to react to it? Are we going to try and kill the messenger as they did in the story? Kinda looks like you're trying to do that.

Or, of course, if the effects of the sacrifice are also symbolic rather than actual, then what is the purpose, really, if it corresponds to nothing in reality but a mythological story?

IT'S A STORY. All stories "correspond to reality". It's why we humans tell them. But they are representations of reality, not reality itself. And we manipulate those representations to better convey the aspects of reality that we feel or believe to be most significant. And this is especially true of mythical stories.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What is the "failure" here? Is it our refusal to listen to listen to the messenger? Is it our failure to take the message to heart? How is any of this Jesus' fault? Jesus delivered and embodied the message to us, even as he was being tortured and murdered for it. So now you want to cheapen that sacrifice by claiming he couldn't have avoided it? Or by claiming he couldn't have have broke and cursed his murderers rather than forgive them? Why are you looking for an excuse to cheapen the courage and sacrifice of this extraordinary man, Jesus of Nazareth, in the story?

So, HE COULDN'T HAVE FAILED BY DYING AND NOT RISING AGAIN, could he? There was absolutely NO CHANCE that he would have failed...and whether that's literal or metaphorical, the story is of The Son of God (Trinitarians certainly seem to think he was divine, as do many others) was a sacrifice that could not have failed. That is God would have had to choose to NOT resurrect Jesus in order for the mission to fail...

Not 'cheapening that sacrifice'...Questioning how it could be a sacrifice if Jesus could not remain dead and not raised.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Certainly it's a story. That's my point. As a story, it involves a sacrifice by a perfect being who stood absolutely no chance of failing to endure the torture and arise refreshed from the grave.

Not much of a sacrifice...

TO ME: the sacrifice only makes any kind of sense if there was a real chance that he would have not 'defeated death' and rose again.