Christians, would you have saved Jesus, if you had he chance?

[Ignorant]

In other words: let's say jesus, the man, said those words. Which is the most likely explanation:

1) He thought he was talking to god. [1] Whether or not anyone was listening is irrelevant. But he himself was not god. [2]

2) He actually was god, [3] talking to another aspect of himself, [4] which had different knowledge to him, [5] causing him to become confused by himself. [6]

How many assumptions to have you make for option 2 to even be possible, let alone probable? [7]

1) He did think this.

2) If Jesus was the Son of God united to a man in a single person (as Christianity accepts), then it does not follow that because (insofar as he is human) he thinks he is talking to God the Father, that he, therefore, is not the Son of God united to a man in a single person.

3) This is a false dichotomy given the Christian understanding of the incarnation. He was god. He was human. Both are true.

4) Yes, the human aspect of himself, at the moment that it lost the experience of its union to the divine aspect of himself, spoke to the divine aspect of himself despite the lack of its immediate experience. Failing to experience that divine presence in himself (due to both the divine and human voluntarily withdrawing the experience but not the withdrawal of the union), in solidarity with all the rest of us who lack that experience, the human aspect of himself cries out to God with a very pointed question.

5) The human aspect of himself had different knowledge from the divine aspect of himself, yes. Any divine means of knowledge which the human aspect had through the union to the divine aspect ceased in this moment, contributing to the agony.

6) Yep. Confused, but still trusting.

7) See above regarding the false dichotomy. The only assumption needed is that of the incarnation, i.e. a human nature is united to the personal divinity of the Son of God from the moment of Jesus's conception. Everything it takes to be human, Jesus had. Everything it takes to be the Son of God, Jesus had. All of those things were united in the single person of the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth.

---

A) It is possible there is a god
B) There is a god
C) This man jesus was (part of) that god
D) This god can split itself into distinct entities with separate knowledge
E) This god would choose to do the above for some reason
F) This god would want people to witness part of himself talking to another part of himself, apparently confused, as if he was just a man talking to some unseen distinct entity

Assumptions required for option 1: 

None.

Well sure, but I assumed that in a discussion about Christianity, some of those assumptions come granted.

If none of the assumptions A-F can be granted on account of revelation, then of course we can't expect a merely logical conclusion [about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth] from first principles and scientific investigation.

[Explicitly Christian beliefs about Jesus, the nature and identity of God and the relationship between Jesus and God are not scientifically/historically demonstrable. I readily agree to that, and only make claims about Jesus and God with the understanding that I derive those claims from faith in a particular revelation. If this was meant to be a critical examination of Christianity without reference to those things held by faith, then I withdraw my comments.]

[robvalue]

Ok, thanks for answer

None of it makes any sense to me but I appreciate you trying.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

Constable Dorfl, you may look at my answers above.

//Your answer makes no sense. You are alleging the perfect being would allow a cack handed hatchet job of his message in order to allow us become better people?//

You may think that if someone has God helping them they will gain knowledge of what the truth is about corrupt Bibles.  I didn't say he doesn't intervene when someone does good.

//Could god not create us as better people, or could he not make it that his message, unaduterated, would suffice?//

You may agree humans have the potential to choose good or evil and may disagree with parts of The Bible and if a person doesn't have enough experience they won't think of how some parts were added or taken out of The Bible maliciously.

//Your answer just raises a larger question, why is your god so small?//

What may you think proves God is so small ?

Constable Dorfl, answers above.

[Ignorant]

Ok, thanks for answer

None of it makes any sense to me but I appreciate you trying.

Anytime!

[GUBU]

"Me, why hast I forsaken me? Why didn't I remember to edit this out with the retcon?"

You = 1 person. Your person is a human nature.

The Son of God = 1 person. His person is the divine nature.

Jesus = The Son of God united to a human nature. His person is the divine nature united to a human nature.

On the cross, the human nature of the person of Jesus, while still united to the divine nature, was deprived of the consolation and experiential presence of the divine nature (as most of us humans experience all too often). Lacking the experience of this personally internal consoling presence in his human nature, Jesus cried out an expression of that internal personal reality which had already been expressed in Psalm 22.

Just my two cents anyway.

Or far more plausibly, Yeshua was a man who either deluded himself or was deluded by another into thinking he was god, and as he was dying his delusion left him.

Or even more plausibly still, there was no crucifixion and the story was made up seventy years or more later when the creators of jesusism were trying to codify it.

[Ignorant]

You = 1 person. Your person is a human nature.

The Son of God = 1 person. His person is the divine nature.

Jesus = The Son of God united to a human nature. His person is the divine nature united to a human nature.

On the cross, the human nature of the person of Jesus, while still united to the divine nature, was deprived of the consolation and experiential presence of the divine nature (as most of us humans experience all too often). Lacking the experience of this personally internal consoling presence in his human nature, Jesus cried out an expression of that internal personal reality which had already been expressed in Psalm 22.

Just my two cents anyway.

Or far more plausibly, Yeshua was a man who either deluded himself or was deluded by another into thinking he was god, and as he was dying his delusion left him.

Or even more plausibly still, there was no crucifixion and the story was made up seventy years or more later when the creators of jesusism were trying to codify it.

When would you date 1 Thessalonians?

[GUBU]

Or far more plausibly, Yeshua was a man who either deluded himself or was deluded by another into thinking he was god, and as he was dying his delusion left him.

Or even more plausibly still, there was no crucifixion and the story was made up seventy years or more later when the creators of jesusism were trying to codify it.

When would you date 1 Thessalonians?

I wouldn't. But biblical "scholars" reckon about 50s ad, written by a man who never met Yeshua and was supposed (by the writing attributed to him) to be at loggerheads theologically with theJerusalem sect.

Though the biggest reason why I say no crucifixion was that Yeshua was convicted under sanhedric law, which proscribed stoning or hanging not crucifixion, and Rome was unlikely to intervene because a minor theological dispute involving non-citizens wasn't something worth angrying up a very prickly people.

[robvalue]

The thing that bugs me the most is why anyone would wait decades to write anything down about this. Of course, if they hadn't been born yet, that's a suitable excuse.

Or maybe what actually happened was written down and has been lost/destroyed.

[madog]

The thing that bugs me the most is why anyone would wait decades to write anything down about this. Of course, if they hadn't been born yet, that's a suitable excuse.

Or maybe what actually happened was written down and has been lost/destroyed.

I think it more likely a new church was formed and then they created the myth ....

[robvalue]

Considering the similarities to previous mythologies, I think that's highly likely. The story was just plausible enough so that there was bound to be plenty of people who would have actually been alive who it "could have been". Once you remove all the stuff that obviously didn't happen, of course. Not a problem back then though I imagine.