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'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?