The Atonement makes zero sense because Jesus' "suffering" was merely an inconvenience

[huckelberry]

We also tend to focus on the superficial things around Jesus and not on the genuinely challenging things he (supposedly) said. DCP and other Mormons are obsessed with Jesus having authority and keys. Evangelicals are obsessed with Jesus blessing them with money and healing. Catholics are obsessed with being absolved of their sins.

A lot of what Jesus challenged us to think about has nothing to do with any of that.

Drumdude is being accurate I think.

[msnobody]

Evangelicals are obsessed with Jesus blessing them with money and healing.

Just put me down for being obsessed with Jesus period.

I’ve never taken upon myself the sins of the world or been separated from God, nor afflicted with Alzheimer’s, so I’m not sure which is worse, but I have a hunch.

[dastardly stem]

Evangelicals are obsessed with Jesus blessing them with money and healing.

Just put me down for being obsessed with Jesus period.

I’ve never taken upon myself the sins of the world or been separated from God, nor afflicted with Alzheimer’s, so I’m not sure which is worse, but I have a hunch.

I didn’t say that, msnobody. That was drumdude, to be clear.

[msnobody]

Just put me down for being obsessed with Jesus period.

I’ve never taken upon myself the sins of the world or been separated from God, nor afflicted with Alzheimer’s, so I’m not sure which is worse, but I have a hunch.

I didn’t say that, msnobody. That was drumdude, to be clear.

You’re right. I’ll correct it. Just shows I should not post while riding in a vehicle.

[huckelberry]

We always speak as if Jesus is a unique character in history. But there were tons of half-gods who lived or rustled around in the heavens. Its as if Jesus had to be a half-god in order to even be considered a something. His story wouldn't have made it without that piece. The element of him being a half god can be explained for all circumstance now, looking back at it. "he was a half-god so he could endure the pain." or "He was a half-god because as such a magical one only he could overcome death"...or whatever. It'd almost be comical though to think Jesus had to suffer, but didn't know why or for what...or didn't realize there would be ultimate relief and salvation for himself. That would obviously ruin the whole story. "My parables are secreted messages teaching my believers that I am to live forever, will conquer death and be their savior...But I don't know what the heck is going to happen really. I'm just pretending (or I "have faith") in these wise stories thinking there's a future kingdom, salvation and life after death." I don't see how that'd make sense.

Stem, these comments tossed my mind into an odd path I did not expect.
Some years ago Mel Gibson made a movie about Jesus being crucified. It was quite popular. I found it both offensive and I though somewhat degrading to the faith. I have had some difficulty deciding why. I thought about the whipping as portrayed and believe that would have been near enough fatal as to hurry his demise on the cross. But I do not know what difference that makes one way or the other.

No I think Mel Gibson has a fascination with the idea of super strong guys enduring a lot of pain. (ending of Braveheart) It fits what you propose here. "he was a half god so he could endure the pain or he was a half god because as such a magical one only he could overcome death"

No, he was 100 percent human and had to face pain and uncertainity like any of the rest of us. He would have hoped for a good outcome but on the cross cried , "why have you forsaken me."

[dastardly stem]

Huckelberry, I don’t see how an uncertain Jesus makes any sense, on the story. His whole point leading up to this uncertainty is he is certain. If we say he is human and panicked because he wishes he didn’t have to feel temporary pain for everyone, then ok. He’s human. But that doesn’t mean he’s uncertain the pain is temporary and will be replaced with unending glory. On the story he’d still know without a doubt the whole “sacrifice”, if you will, gets him the biggest payout ever, while many to most others will end up in a place of eternal suffering.

[Res Ipsa]

Huckelberry, I don’t see how an uncertain Jesus makes any sense, on the story. His whole point leading up to this uncertainty is he is certain. If we say he is human and panicked because he wishes he didn’t have to feel temporary pain for everyone, then ok. He’s human. But that doesn’t mean he’s uncertain the pain is temporary and will be replaced with unending glory. On the story he’d still know without a doubt the whole “sacrifice”, if you will, gets him the biggest payout ever, while many to most others will end up in a place of eternal suffering.

I don't think that the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament is inconsistent with an individual who has a strong conviction based on something short of omniscience. I see nothing that excludes room for uncertainty and doubt.

[dastardly stem]

Huckelberry, I don’t see how an uncertain Jesus makes any sense, on the story. His whole point leading up to this uncertainty is he is certain. If we say he is human and panicked because he wishes he didn’t have to feel temporary pain for everyone, then ok. He’s human. But that doesn’t mean he’s uncertain the pain is temporary and will be replaced with unending glory. On the story he’d still know without a doubt the whole “sacrifice”, if you will, gets him the biggest payout ever, while many to most others will end up in a place of eternal suffering.

I don't think that the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament is inconsistent with an individual who has a strong conviction based on something short of omniscience. I see nothing that excludes room for uncertainty and doubt.

hm....What's a Jesus who isn't certain to stand in judgment at the last day, as Matthew 7:22;23? Or moving to the end of his life...How is Jesus uncertain when he suggests in Matt 26 that he will be betrayed by one of his followers and then confidently identifies Judas? That's the opposite of uncertain. He follows that by certainly saying He will rise again and will appear before the disciples. Tells Peter, after Peter confidently declares he will not be offended by Jesus, that Peter will be offended after the cock crows 3 times, precisely. He says he'll be betrayed before being betrayed...standing before the high priest forced to answer his questions Jesus said, confidently, He'd be standing on the right hand of God soon in heaven. It seems to Matt 27 there is no hint of doubt at all coming from Jesus. The opposite in fact. He knew exactly what was coming and confidently knew precisely His reward. I honestly can't imagine how a "i don't know what the hell is going on" Jesus makes any sense. Each of the four stories if they have something in common it's a confident Jesus who knows exactly what's happening and what to expect. The only semblance of doubt is far more a doubt of if He really wants to endure the temporary pains.

But I could be wrong. Where's the indications that Jesus wasn't sure of himself or sure of what was going to happen?

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think that the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament is inconsistent with an individual who has a strong conviction based on something short of omniscience. I see nothing that excludes room for uncertainty and doubt.

hm....What's a Jesus who isn't certain to stand in judgment at the last day, as Matthew 7:22;23? Or moving to the end of his life...How is Jesus uncertain when he suggests in Matt 26 that he will be betrayed by one of his followers and then confidently identifies Judas? That's the opposite of uncertain. He follows that by certainly saying He will rise again and will appear before the disciples. Tells Peter, after Peter confidently declares he will not be offended by Jesus, that Peter will be offended after the cock crows 3 times, precisely. He says he'll be betrayed before being betrayed...standing before the high priest forced to answer his questions Jesus said, confidently, He'd be standing on the right hand of God soon in heaven. It seems to Matt 27 there is no hint of doubt at all coming from Jesus. The opposite in fact. He knew exactly what was coming and confidently knew precisely His reward. I honestly can't imagine how a "i don't know what the hell is going on" Jesus makes any sense. Each of the four stories if they have something in common it's a confident Jesus who knows exactly what's happening and what to expect. The only semblance of doubt is far more a doubt of if He really wants to endure the temporary pains.

But I could be wrong. Where's the indications that Jesus wasn't sure of himself or sure of what was going to happen?

It's your assertion. What is your methodology that allows you to reliably distinguish between a strong faith-based conviction and omniscience based on a reading of a 2000 year old story?

[dastardly stem]

It's your assertion. What is your methodology that allows you to reliably distinguish between a strong faith-based conviction and omniscience based on a reading of a 2000 year old story?

I have absolutely zero comments that have anything to do with a distinction between a strong faith-based conviction and omniscience. I was thinking more along the lines of a strong faith-based conviction--which is portrayed in the story as I see it--and a uncertain Jesus who isn't sure what's coming.

What assertion are you saying I made?

My contention would be Huckelberry's reference to Jesus saying "Why have you forsaken me?" is less an illustration to Jesus doesn't know what's coming, since he's confident He knows what's coming, but is more about a Jesus who feels panicked due to pain and anguish that he has to suffer, as he clarifies it many times over, temporarily. He knows (as in a strong faith-based conviction), as he says all along, that he'll be sitting on the right side of God in heaven after it's all over. It seems to me. A Jesus who doesn't know or have a strong faith-based conviction, doesn't make any sense.