I just published a new short article that asks, "If a person thinks that Jesus’ sacrifice is valid, why was it imperative for Jesus to survive Herod's massacre of the innocents?"
The goal of the article is to generate new thinking on the point of Jesus' alleged sacrifice -- it's a worthwhile endeavor for both Christian and non-Christian to try and fully understand what each believes about vicarious redemption.
Article: Jesus: Possibly Acceptable Child Sacrifice
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f4195197-1eef-4d94-8f1a-db9fe9f6528f)
{ 4 comments }
Shhh. Asking awkward questions makes baby Jebus cry.
Very thought-provoking article. Last Christmas, I listened to a sermon about the Massacre of the Innocents, which infuriated me in part because it was given by a family member who will be ordained soon (this summer) and in part because it made no sense and was trying to excuse one of the worst incidents in the New Testament by making the congregants feel guilty about the death of all those children. I wrote at length on my blog (here if you're interested) about what I thought was wrong about the sermon. I couldn't believe my relative could preach about God letting thousands of toddlers die as if it was a good thing, and that a number of my family members would really think it was a wonderful sermon.
I didn't think about the fact that there is no explanation as to why Jesus dying at the age of 2 wouldn't have counted as a suitable sacrifice for our alleged sins. Certainly Jesus could have died, gone to hell, and come back and preached for as long as he wanted, as you suggest in your article. This is definitely food for thought.
I suppose a believer could argue that there are some temptations (related to sex, for example) that baby Jesus would not have resisted/conquered while in human flesh had he died before adulthood, and therefore his sacrifice would not have been valid. But this would be baseless: as you point out in the other article you link to, this supposed sacrifice of Jesus is completely unlike any other in the Bible and doesn't follow OT rules.
So God is setting new ground rules anyway for Jesus. If God existed and was really intent on someone dying as a sacrifice, certainly he could have just as easily have counted the sacrifice of his 2-year-old son, thus sparing the lives of thousands of toddlers. Besides the one possible argument I mentioned (which I could see someone proposing, but which is indefensible), I'd be very interested what believers would say to this.
"I'd be very interested what believers would say to this."
I can imagine it: "It's hard enough for you heathens to admit Jesus rose from the dead once. God knows it would even be harder for you to admit it occurred multiple times. But God loves you sooooo much, He doesn't your path to salvation to be nigh impossible to follow".
You may be on to something, Jaume. To which I could counter, "It's very convenient that Jesus rose from the dead only once, while he was supposedly buried behind some huge boulder, with no witnesses there at the time and Jesus gone by the time anyone got there. At least modern magicians do their tricks in front of people."
I'm sure they would reply that we just need to have "faith" that he was resurrected. Believers try to have it both ways: "there's proof Jesus rose from the dead!" Then when you dispute the proof, they say "You have to have faith." Which is it???
Comments on this entry are closed.