did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?

[© tweed]

did Jesus go to Jerusalem intending to die?

[© 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?

[© 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).

[© 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.

[© 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.

And pre-resurrection he walked on water.

ok.  what's your point, that the pre-Paschal Jesus performed miracles (too)?

[© tweed]

I found this 1976 quote from thorn-in-the-side Catholic theologian Hans Kung that seems to point to "no", and thus against theological orthodoxy:

Jesus did not look for suffering, it was forced on him.  Anyone who indulges in self-torture, plainly longing for pain and suffering or even inflicting these on himself, is not truly following the Cross of Jesus.

...perhaps a slight swing at Lither's self-flaggelation in that second sentence,