did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?

[© tweed]

did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Define 'intending'.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

His purpose of life was to teach people the wages of their sins, and like him; holy spirit will be with you at time of death.

But, he was meant to die, from his teachings.

[tik 🪀✨]

Yes, he knew it was the purpose, but of course believing that isn't in and of itself a requirement to call oneself Christian.

[© tweed]

If Jesus is God, then to conform to the Christian view of God would be to know all and to be perfect.

do you not make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth the historical person and Jesus the risen Christ?

[DC Al Fine]

If Jesus is God, then to conform to the Christian view of God would be to know all and to be perfect.

do you not make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth the historical person and Jesus the risen Christ?

Could you elaborate? It sounds like you are going down Spong's "The disciples believed super hard" route, but I'm not sure.

[© tweed]

If Jesus is God, then to conform to the Christian view of God would be to know all and to be perfect.

do you not make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth the historical person and Jesus the risen Christ?

Could you elaborate? It sounds like you are going down Spong's "The disciples believed super hard" route, but I'm not sure.

I'm not going anywhere, I don't even know what that is.  the Gospels are themselves divided on this.  whether Jesus experienced anxiety and didn't want to go to Jerusalem, and at the behest of the Father he relented, or if he took it in stride. 

then there's the semi-separate question of what he wanted to do there.  did he think he'd go to the Temple, preach, and rally enough followers to effect a Jewish revolution, or at least, to gain a bunch of new followers?  or did he go intending to raise enough of a ruckus that he would be executed?  (it seems as if the penal substitution option would require Jesus to have known he was going to die).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm an Adoptionist myself, so I don't think that Jesus was Christ from birth. It would have been impossible for him to be a fully human child and have consciously partaken of the Godhead. I also hold that he gradually gained the attributes of the Godhead and did not have omniscience before the resurrection as it would have made the crucifixion into a farce. That said, it's fairly clear that in the gospels Jesus knew that he was to die.

[°Leprechaun]

Why would anybody want to die?
Why would anybody want to kill someone else?

Neither of those seem prudent, wise, logical or very nice.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why would anybody want to die?
Why would anybody want to kill someone else?

Neither of those seem prudent, wise, logical or very nice.

If the death of one would save more than one?

[°Leprechaun]

Why would anybody want to die?
Why would anybody want to kill someone else?

Neither of those seem prudent, wise, logical or very nice.

If the death of one would save more than one?

You can't help anybody if you're dead. That's my point. So, I'm going to "go there".

[Ban my account ffs!]

Some believe Jesus the body was created by the demiurge because the demiurge became aware of the Father's intention to send spiritual Christ to redeem mankind.

Jesus in the body gained the attributes of spiritual Christ, much to the consternation of the Demiurge...so he was executed.  But The spirit of Christ left Jesus and returned after the resurrection, once again flouting the intentions of the demiurge, whom Christ visited upon his "death".  When he visited hell, or heaven, depending on which side you look at it from, he shook its foundations so badly as to nearly destroy it and probably scared the demiurge very much.  And thus he took the seat at the right hand of the demiurge, that he might let people escape the material prison we find ourselves in where the demiurge would keep you under his ever watchful, judging eye.  No love...only wrath, anger, and the love of his law.  If you follow it to a T, you can wander around his empty paradise drinking milk and honey out of shear boredom.  But nobody...not Mary...not Moses...not anybody has been good enough to make it to this rather uninspired paradise.

The best you can hope for without Jesus is torment or a reroll of that pair a' dice after your memory is wiped so you can try again.

That's why it is important to know that in the end you will have a choice.  You will hear the knock and Jesus will make you know it is he that knocks.  If you let him in, he will dine with you and send the holy spirit ahead of you to clear the way back to the Father's embrace.  And you would do well to follow her, for she is your mother.

[© tweed]

If Jesus is God, then to conform to the Christian view of God would be to know all and to be perfect.

do you not make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth the historical person and Jesus the risen Christ?

This is the Religion board, not the History board. As such, I assumed you asked this question in a religious context, not a historical context. Aside from that, I'm not sure what to say to your question. Are you implying one should make a significant distinction between Jesus before and after His death? If so, on what basis?

the Gospels (save Mark) and Acts 1 note the significant difference between his 'Resurrection body' and a normal human body.  I believe in John he's able to cross through walls and whatnot.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Some believe Jesus the body was created by the demiurge because the demiurge became aware of the Father's intention to send spiritual Christ to redeem mankind.

Ugh. Gnosticism. One of the most depressing and illogical philosophies ever thought of.

[DC Al Fine]

If Jesus is God, then to conform to the Christian view of God would be to know all and to be perfect.

do you not make a distinction between Jesus of Nazareth the historical person and Jesus the risen Christ?

This is the Religion board, not the History board. As such, I assumed you asked this question in a religious context, not a historical context. Aside from that, I'm not sure what to say to your question. Are you implying one should make a significant distinction between Jesus before and after His death? If so, on what basis?

the Gospels (save Mark) and Acts 1 note the significant difference between his 'Resurrection body' and a normal human body.  I believe in John he's able to cross through walls and whatnot.

And pre-resurrection he walked on water.

[Mopsus]

Some believe Jesus the body was created by the demiurge because the demiurge became aware of the Father's intention to send spiritual Christ to redeem mankind.

Ugh. Gnosticism. One of the most depressing and illogical philosophies ever thought of.

Why? Because it takes mind/body dualism to its logical conclusion? In that case, Gnostic Christianity is more logical than Pauline Christianity, not less.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Some believe Jesus the body was created by the demiurge because the demiurge became aware of the Father's intention to send spiritual Christ to redeem mankind.

Ugh. Gnosticism. One of the most depressing and illogical philosophies ever thought of.

Why? Because it takes mind/body dualism to its logical conclusion? In that case, Gnostic Christianity is more logical than Pauline Christianity, not less.

Because the idea that creation is inherently flawed is depressing and the idea that a supreme goodness would not have been able to undo the demiurge's creation before it even got a chance to cause trouble is illogical.,  Nor is the idea that the body is inherently flawed what I would call a logical conclusion.  And last but not least, Pauline Christianity gets a bad rap thanks to the Deutero-Pauline epistles rather than anything Paul himself had a hand in writing or causing to be written.

[Mopsus]

Because the idea that creation is inherently flawed is depressing

Though not inconsistent with personal observation and its logical inferences.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As as is the idea that God, who turns free will off and on at other points in The Bible, wouldn't be able to prevent The Fall.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

In that case, you have as big a bone to pick with Pauline Christianity as with Gnosticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which of Paul's epistles do you consider questionable? Because the flesh is condemned in Romans and Galatians, too.

[°Leprechaun]

True Federalist,

Do you believe in universal salvation?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

True Federalist,

Do you believe in universal salvation?

Tell me what you mean, and I'll tell you. (I'm not being facetious, there are several different, tho related, meanings to that term.) Certainly, access to salvation is universal, even for those who never had access to Christian teachings while alive, or adopted them while living. At a minimum, they hear them after their life when Jesus descended to the dead. I view God, and by extension both Heaven and Sheol, as existing outside the linear time we humans experience.

Also, I think that those who hold to Christian exclusivism have missed the mark by being too literal. When Christ spoke of not getting to the Father except thru him, he spoke metaphorically (there's probably some better literary term than metaphor, but I can't think of it right now) referring to the Way he exemplifies. Yet while few will find the Way on their own, necessitating guides such as Jesus, he doesn't say he's the only one to find the Way. (As you might have guessed by the way I capitalize Way, I also include Daoism in my worldview.)

(I'll reply to Mopsus later when I have time.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And last but not least, Pauline Christianity gets a bad rap thanks to the Deutero-Pauline epistles rather than anything Paul himself had a hand in writing or causing to be written.

Which of Paul's epistles do you consider questionable? Because the flesh is condemned in Romans and Galatians, too.

I take it you refer to Romans 6:12 among other passages.  That passage often gets over translated with the translator choosing a narrower meaning than was originally the case so as to serve a particular viewpoint. The NIV (among other translations) is especially bad in that regard, translating ἐπιθυμία as "evil desires" when it should be translated as simply "desires".  It is not as as if one would translate Luke 22:15 as "And He said to them, “I have evilly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" despite using the same Greek word to express the concept of desire.  Romans 1:28 makes it clear that Paul thinks that the mind can be evil and the list of sins given in Romans 1:29-30 includes both sins of the mind and of the body.  In Romans 12:5, Paul speaks of Christians as being the body of Christ. Did he mean that Christians are evil?

While Paul does make use of the metaphorical spirit/flesh = good/evil theme elsewhere in Romans, the entirety of Romans indicates that its author was using because of the limitations of human language and thus resorted to what would have been a commonly understood metaphor to whose who heard the epistle at that time.

As for Galatians, I presume you are referring to Galatians 4:21-31.  Yet there it is fairly clear that flesh is being used as a metaphor for Man in contrast to spirit for God, just as in those same verses, maidservants are metaphorically identified with Man and freewomen with God, yet I doubt anyone would argues that slaves are all evil or that freemen are all good.

As for the authorship of the Pauline Epistles, I accept the core seven that most critical scholars think Paul wrote as definitely Paul's: Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon. Colossians and Ephesians are probably Pauline, tho possibly with interpolations, especially Ephesians which was almost certainly an encyclical letter. That they were written at the behest of Paul rather than by Paul himself is also possible. 2 Thessalonians I'm unsure of and the Pastoral epistles I think are pretty clearly Deutero-Pauline.

[°Leprechaun]

Although the term "universalism" has numerous meanings I am aware of only one definition
of universal salvation, and that is that everyone will eventually go to heaven. An ultra-universalist believes that everyone goes directly to heaven and there is no state after death to prepare someone to get there.

If everyone is saved, there is no need for religion and we might as well all be atheists.

Besides if having faith in the right kind of god is a prerequisite to salvation if you believe in hell and since there are many different religions the 'god' everyone speaks would prefer us all to be atheists anyway because the first commandment tells us not to believe in a false god, and chances are if you believe in god, it isn't the right one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Although the term "universalism" has numerous meanings I am aware of only one definition
of universal salvation, and that is that everyone will eventually go to heaven.

Even those who would rather not be there? An eternity in heaven would be hell for a Buddhist. Forcing everyone to go to heaven is a violation of free will and my beliefs include that the Divine places a high value on free will.

[Mopsus]

The verses that I had in mind were Romans 7:14-25 (which makes a clear distinction between mind/spirit and body) and Galatians 5:19-21 (which lists a number of "deadly sins", not all of which are fleshly in nature, but which are all attributed to "the flesh").

Belief in dualism is pretty much essential for Pauline Christianity to make any sense. Otherwise, what was the point of Jesus's death? To compensate for humanity's sins? Not only is that illogical, I find little indication that Paul believed that. What I do find is the belief that man's flesh is naturally inclined to depravity, and anyone who lives according to his flesh will die as a result. However, what Jesus's physical death and spiritual resurrection offers is a model of transcendence, and it's that model that Christians must imitate if they want to gain everlasting life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I reviewed those verses, and I still think you are taking them too literally and ignoring the metaphorical meaning that becomes clear if you take a look at the whole of those epistles rather than selected passages in isolation

Also, it is made quite clear in the gospels that Jesus' resurrection was physical, otherwise why the need to have his apostles touch him and eat with him? (Thomas gets unfairly singled out as a doubter, as they all doubted until they beheld the resurrected Christ.)

Rather than transcendence to a purely spiritual being, I view the resurrection was the final step in the unification of the Human and Divine natures in Jesus Christ which opened the Way to our own individual theosis. I can see why some would have a problem with that view as it is fairly dependent upon Adoptionism to make sense.