What if Jesus was never killed?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Passion of the Christ
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 12:13 AM)
For orthodox Christianity this question is, of course, irrelevant because it was God's plan all along that Jesus be killed for humanity's sake. But as a sci-fi "What If?" historical-speculative question, what if, through some unexpected social circumstances, the high priests decided that Jesus was not worth killing, or perhaps some of Jesus' Pharisaic allies had persuaded the priests that Jesus should be permitted continue to preach relatively unmolested?
No execution on the Cross; therefore, no atonement theology; no three days in the tomb followed by resurrection (although a much later resurrection could still have occurred after Jesus died a natural death) - and therefore no Resurrection/Ascension/Glorified Christ reigning in Heaven until Judgment Day.
No execution; Jesus continues to preach, probably scrapping - or at least de-emphasising his teaching that the Son of Man
must
die as a ransom for many; he taught in the Temple during "Passion Week"; but the Passion didn't happen - so neither did Easter or the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. After that Passover Jesus, disciples and family traveled back to Galilee where he continued his teaching about the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God here-and-now.
How might Jesus' teaching have changed and developed had he lived another (say) 25 years?
No Resurrection also means no Saul of Tarsus blinded by the risen Jesus' heavenly radiance; no Pauline message of the risen Christ living in the hearts of believers; no Paul likely means no rapid spread of Jesus' movement into the wider Hellenistic/Pagan world - there being no "Apostle to the Gentiles".
In the extra lifetime granted to Jesus in this scenario, might he have tentatively reached out to Gentiles and sent disciples - experimentally - into Gentile towns with a message tailored to Gentile ears?
Without Paul, and with perhaps only a small effort on Jesus' part to communicate with Gentiles, would nascent Jewish Christianity have survived the two devastating Roman wars of CE 70 and in CE 135? Without a strong Pharisaic/rabbinical system such as normative Judaism had at the time and which preserved post-war Judaism, would Jewish Christianity have survived outside Palestine in sufficient numbers and strength to ever have become "The Church" as it has come down to us? -
raif-1 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 02:11 AM)
Well Bastasch, will the "what if" make away with this Bible verse as well
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)
?because like it or not according to this verse killed or not, risen or not, he had to go away if I understand this correctly. -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 12:58 PM)
Good point, but on the theory that he did not go away at the age of 33, because he was never crucified, perhaps John 16:7 could be deferred to the time that he died (say) at the age of 70. Then he would depart, and sometime afterwards, the Paraclete would come
-
raif-1 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 02:53 PM)
Well if that is the case, then Jesus will be seen by all as just a prophet. Like much you said plus the trinity would not even be known as his preach of GOD's oneness will override the so called ambiguous divinity/trinity messages. At least this is what I see will happen with the what if.
-
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 03:28 PM)
But I did leave open the possibility that, at the end of his natural life, God could have raised Jesus - the Resurrection would then have come after a natural, not a human-judicial, death. So Jesus could have risen and assumed his heavenly role at God's right hand, from whence he would still execute judgment at the end of the age. Trinitarianism may have followed in this imaginary scenario - based on an overvaluing of his new heavenly status - but if as you say, Jesus had continued his monistic/monotheistic teaching for another (say) 40 years, perhaps his monotheism would have made such an indelible stamp on everyone that maybe Trinitarianism may never have come into being
-
mamu2 — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 05:59 AM)
Interesting ideas. Personally, I wonder why it is even necessary for Jesus to be God for the majority of Christians. Surely the circumstances of his birth and resurrection and being God's son should be enough. Jesus being that chosen human mediator between God and mankind without being divine carries the same messagethere is but one God and Jesus is the way to him. That's still 'Christianity'.
-
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 05:00 PM)
Just an idle thought/addendumI was just reflecting
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic parochial school for 12 years, was an altar boy, had a priest cousin and an aunt nun, and independently studied doctrinal issues. All through that time, and into later decades, I as a Catholic, was haunted by Jesus' "atoning sacrifice on the Cross", i.e., the fact that he was executed, and the interpretation that said execution was performed for humanity for the remission of sins. And every church building and teaching was overshadowed by this doctrine.
The center of Catholic life is the Eucharist, which is not only about Jesus' "Real Presence" under the appearances of bread and wine, but also about his redeeming death, which each Mass "re-presents". Not a repetition of Calvary, with poor Jesus hanging on the cross for all eternity, as certain ignorant Protestants charge. Rather, the sacrifice of the Mass is Jesus' death re-presented, not a separate, new, crucifixion. The analogy was used that there is one power generator (Calvary), with many small power stations, transformers, etc. that are plugged/looped into into the source and derive their energy from it (these would be individual Masses performed around the clock on a planetary scale). One sacrifice/one "generator", with many "receivers".
And everyone knows how Calvary dominates Catholic art, from crucifixes, artworks of the Crucifixion, to the Stigmatists, who are said to receive Christ's crucifixion wounds in their own bodies. Then, of course, there is the Sign of the Cross. And of course there is Holy Week, when crucifixes and all statuary are shrouded in purple cloth as a sign of mourning - mourning over the torment that Jesus bore for our sake.
So even I admit the centrality of Jesus' actual, factual historical death (i.e., if he did exist as a historical person) to orthodox Christianity. I lived immersed in its Catholic Christian interpretation for some 28 years, and can appreciate how much its deletion from Christianity would alter that religion. But on the principle that truth trumps interpretation, I reject the "atoning death" interpretation as very implausible, which is to say that I reject Paul and John inasmuch as they promote that interpretation.
And this is because Judaism held that Yahweh had ordained - and ordained
forever- a Law and a Covenant - one for Jews (the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant), one for Gentiles (the Noahide Covenant). Again, these, by Yahweh's own words, were to last forever, never to be replaced by an atoning sacrifice of a "perfect God-Man" or a new Pauline/Johannine "testament". This is why Jesus could say that the Law would last until the current world would pass away, and not one "jot or tittle" of the Law could be added to or subtracted from. This is why I accept this truly Jewish perspective, and reject the anti-Judaistic salvation theories of Paul, John, and later Christian writers. (I myself am a Buddhist, but here I am speaking of taking the most accurate view possible of what original Christianity probably taught.)
So, to come full circle, had Jesus not died young via Roman execution, there is every plausibility, Christianity - had it survived the two Roman Wars - would be a much different thing than it is today. Salvation would probably still be as it was in Jesus' time: Torah and Mosaic Covenant for Jewish converts to the Jesus movement; and the Noahide Covenant for Gentile converts to the Jesus movement.
And, in fact, this is exactly the situation that Acts 15 depicts:
James, Jesus' brother and head of the movement, decided that Gentile converts did not need to become Jews in order to enter: rather, they would simply follow the already-available Noahide Covenant - plus Jesus' own unique "Kingdom of God" teachings - without needing to follow Torah, be circumcised, or to keep to a kosher diet.
And again, as Acts proves, the Torah-faithful Jewish Christians still attended the Temple (which means that they did not think that Jesus made a Temple-replacing sacrifice or instituted a Torah-replacing doctrine). In fact, having heard that Paul was dishonestly telling his Gentile congregations that Torah and Covenant had been invalidated
even for Jews
, they quite correctly pulled his feet to the fire, and showed him
all the Jesus movement Jews, "thousands, who are zealous for the Law"
(Acts 21: 19-22).
So Acts plausibly reports what original Christianity held salvation to be: Jews continuing to follow Torah and observing the commandments and attending the Temple; Gentiles practicing the Noahide Covenant; and both parties entering the Kingdom of God on earth as Jesus had preached it. No "atoning sacrifice" and no "New Covenant" existed - or were necessary.
- a Law and a Covenant - one for Jews (the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant), one for Gentiles (the Noahide Covenant). Again, these, by Yahweh's own words, were to last forever, never to be replaced by an atoning sacrifice of a "perfect God-Man" or a new Pauline/Johannine "testament". This is why Jesus could say that the Law would last until the current world would pass away, and not one "jot or tittle" of the Law could be added to or subtracted from. This is why I accept this truly Jewish perspective, and reject the anti-Judaistic salvation theories of Paul, John, and later Christian writers. (I myself am a Buddhist, but here I am speaking of taking the most accurate view possible of what original Christianity probably taught.)
-
The_Baba — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 03:00 PM)
Muslims believe according to the Quran that he was never crucified and God put Jesus's likeness on another prisoner about to be crucified while Jesus was taken up into the heavens. Muslims also believe that Jesus will return near the end times to defeat the Anti Christ(False Messiah), the second coming and that Jesus is not the son of God but a messenger and a prophet, like Noah, Abraham, Moses and Muhammad, who is the last messenger sent to man kind till the final hour.
http://www.imdb.com/list/_OaGg-zdQKo/ -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 03:25 PM)
Thanksyes, some sects of the Gnostic Christians believed that another person was substituted for Jesus on the cross, the idea being that a truly divine being could not experience human suffering and deathit has some merit.