The narrative of salvation is a problem if we consider these words of Jesus: 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matthew 26 : 39 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27: 46

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." --- Voltaire

🕊💞💓💕💗💞

Jesus died so man could partake in theosis once more, as Adam was was meant to since the beginning. Christ took away the sin of Adam, which was the sin of the world: death and corruption.

It seems to me that at least part of what it means for sinners to deserve death is that they ought to die. But if sinners ought to die, and if sinners aren’t deserving of Christ’s sacrifice, then doesn’t it logically follow that sinners ought not attain eternal life though acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice? How is it not a contradiction to maintain that sinners ought to die, and that they ought *_not_* die (through substitutionary atonement) at the same time?

It was man who committed the sin in Paradise that brought about the curse and death. Why would Christ pay for our sins to secure Salvation? Not to mention how can God die even for 3 days since God / Christ is eternal? They will tell me, man cannot do it. But it is enough for ONE to achieve it. It is enough for one to achieve an act of holiness close enough to the infinite dimension that is the dimension of God! How can it be? We can use the mathematical analogy: what is the limit of a function of the type f(x) = a / x when x -> 0? It is infinite, of course, although taking finite values along the way. Man, as opposed to God, does not have infinite but finite dimensions. But nothing prevents him from triggering a process that tends to infinity. And that magnitude already contains the justice and glory that will allow him to pay for the (finite) sin he committed in Eden. The complexity doesn't stop there, but I went as far as I thought was reasonable.

Jesus was crucified and denounced because Jesus taught a new doctrine, and for this Jesus suffered death. Where then is the freedom of speech, thought and opinion? Jesus' teachings were felt to be seditious! Jesus' teachings upset religious authorities, who wanted to remain in power. Religious authories believed Jesus was revolutionary, and thought Jesus wanted their power; but they were wrong. Jesus had no use for earthly power! No desire whatsoever for any of the things most people crave and mistakenly believe will make them happy. Jesus knew better! Jesus knew that happiness could never exist where Love was not. Jesus came to teach Love, not to grab for power; not even spiritual power. Jesus also did not come to build a "church" or create a "religion," but to correct the distortions within the Scriptures. This is Jesus' intent today, as many of the teachings are misunderstood and are distortions of the message of Love.

I disagree.