Jesus didn’t come to die on Cross

Early Christianity was a mishmash of different ideas. Many believed that Jesus was an apparition or a symbol and not a man and others believed things similar to what modern Christians believed about him. Then it is no surprise if the gospels then have contradictory materials about Jesus. We will see that some traditions in the gospels say he didn't intend to die on the cross and others say he did.

Generally however, the gospels have to explain how Jesus could have been crucified and be the son of God. Their answer is that he planned to die on the cross and predicted it before it happened and said it was necessary to ransom sinners and save them. This is a pack of lies.  It is just what you would expect.

Jesus said the Old Testament prophecies spoke of him. But they never predicted that the Messiah would die and rise again. Even Psalm 16 that is used to prove the resurrection was predicted never actually speaks of a dead man returning to life but of a sick man getting well. If there was a historical Jesus, he never expected to die on a cross though he did expect to suffer greatly.
On the night he was arrested prior to his crucifixion, Jesus said that God would send a legion of angels to rescue him from the cross if he asked (Matthew 26:53). Christians say it implicitly means if it is God’s will but since it is not God’s will and not Jesus’ they won’t be asked for.

Prior to his arrest, Jesus told his apostles to sell what they had and procure weapons. He was then shown two swords and said, “Enough” (Luke 22:36-38). So, perhaps the enough meant “wise up I don’t mean real swords” or he thought that two swords would be enough to defend him. Perhaps he thought that only a couple were going to arrest him. It would show he had no intention of dying.
Perhaps he wanted the disciples to be under-armed because he had a team ready to pretend to be arresting him. He would go under cover. Crucifixions would take place. Everybody would assume he was one of the crucified. Then he would reappear again to implement the greatest religious hoax of all time.
There were a lot of lies told decades later in the gospels about the Jewish crowd forcing Pilate to kill him. This would suggest that this scenario could well have been the right one.
Perhaps Jesus was claiming that God was going to magically enable his men to destroy a cohort with two swords. That would be a sign of mental disturbance or of over-confidence in his psychic abilities.
Christians say the two swords were required only as symbols of the uselessness of earthly weapons.
But whatever, there is no evidence for the symbol interpretation of the two swords. When Jesus could have been speaking literally that is what he should be taken to be doing. Don’t see symbols where they need not be. Jesus let them carry the swords and Peter even used his on the high priest’s slave proving the literal interpretation. The proper interpretation has Jesus deciding to go back on his promise to let himself be arrested and put to death (Mark 10:34; 14:24). He broke this promise when he asked God to save him in the Garden (Mark 14:36). It was still breaking his word though he instantly changed his mind. Yet the gospels say he spoke as a prophet and predicted that he would die on the cross and rise again. He had a lot of faith in his ability to see the future hadn’t he? The fact that the Old Testament considers the power to see the future and the will of God to be the mark of a real messenger from God and the gospels give prophecies that could be written after the event shows that the Old Testament is being trampled upon and that there was no honesty or divine inspiration in those gospels at all for proof of being made before the event would be necessary to fit the strict Old Testament standard. If Jesus approved the gospels he was a fake and an antichrist.

Jesus told them first that when they were sent out by him they never lacked anything and then he told them to sell their garments and buy swords. Obviously, this means that they will have no problem getting them so he wanted them to get literal swords. He also told them to keep a tight hold on their purses and bags. It seems that Jesus was planning to make his escape with his disciples or was planning to disappear and leave them to face the mob. He felt that when the mob saw that Jesus was not there the disciples would have been okay. The swords were just a precaution in case two or three overzealous Jesus haters would attack them and perhaps to deter such attacks as well.

Jesus said that in his mind he was willing to undergo the crucifixion but that his flesh held him back (Matthew 26:41). If he sincerely wanted to endure it he could have. This was a hypocritical lie. He said that when Judas arrived with the band that he and his apostles must escape (Matthew 26:46). Jesus had changed his mind and he wanted to get away despite claiming that it had to happen as the scriptures foretold. He was denying that the prophets were truly prophets. The fact that he let his men carry weapons proves that his prayer in the Garden was for salvation from crucifixion when he asked his Father to take the cup away from him.
In the Garden of Gethsemane, just before he was arrested to be killed, Jesus in agony at the thought of being crucified prayed, “Abba, [which means] Father, everything is possible for You. Take away this cup from Me; yet not what I will but what You [will]” (Mark 14:36).


Some Christians have started lying that he is not praying to be able to retreat from the cross but praying for it to go as planned and then pass to give way to the resurrection.  But that would mean praying "What I will is what you will."  The interpretation is far-fetched.

If we want to see a sin in Jesus' prayer we have to focus on the word yet. The word yet shows that he was aware of having opposed God and was repenting it or just meant, “I am asking this of you but it is your decision”. But Jesus said that prayer was in essence, “Thy will be done”. This translates as, “I ask this only if it is your will yet your will be done.” But this is ridiculous. Also, if God told Jesus he had to die on the cross, and Jesus said he did tell him and saw that he would, then Jesus knew he had no right to pray for deliverance from the cross and indeed there would be no point in it. If Jesus prayed to avoid crucifixion then Jesus sinned. Jesus sinned and then corrected himself. That is the understanding of the words.

Some say that Jesus prayed only that the cup of suffering would be taken from him only if the suffering would make him sin against God. But if the Bible says that Jesus could not sin and God could not drive his own Son to sin what they say is unacceptable. And if Jesus’ prayer meant that, he would have been accusing God of not knowing what he was doing.
Christians say that Jesus would not have gone back on his promise to get crucified so “this cup” refers to the agony of fear and horror that allegedly made him sweat blood there. This is false for a man who could go for crucifixion could have borne the pain. Besides he would still be putting a bit of rebellion in his prayer so the answer does not help at all. The “yet” is still not accounted for in terms of Jesus being the sinless Son of God. It cannot be.
Jesus asked for the cup to pass from him. A cup represented his shed blood at the Last Supper it would be likely that this cup stands for shed blood in the passion. A cup is for holding liquid. Luke says that Jesus’ sweat was like blood for it was so plentiful not that it was blood. The cup was the suffering of the cross as signified by the blood.

It is thought that since Matthew and Mark say that Jesus prayed during his heartbreaking sadness and sweat he meant the pain he was feeling then. It was that he wanted to be delivered from. But he knew he could not avoid the cross and it was it that was on his mind not the pain in the garden. He didn’t suffer the agony in the garden just for the heck of it. It was over the impending crucifixion. Why ask to be delivered from pain when you know in a few hours you will have worse to endure? Better to endure the lesser pain in the hope that it gives you strength for later on.
In Luke 22, we see that Jesus prays for deliverance and then an angel appears to console him and his anguish gets worse and his sweat becomes like drops of blood. This shows that it was the crucifixion Jesus was dreading and it was it he wanted to be rescued from. God tried to help him with the anguish in the garden but Jesus couldn’t be helped.

If Jesus meant the agony in the garden, God willed that Jesus should suffer for his prayer was ignored. Despite the comfort of the angel, Jesus was still suffering terribly and it got worse. If Jesus could ask God to do what God never intended to do then he could ask him to rescue him from impending execution though both had decreed that it should happen. If Jesus wanted the crucifixion postponed then that would have been a sin for it would have been better to get it over with and it was still God’s will that he endure the cross.
Consider this, “Jesus might have been asking God to preserve him from too much pain in the crucifixion instead of asking him to save him from the crucifixion altogether.”
This doesn’t explain the yet either. There was still an element of rebellion.
The “yet” proves that Jesus was not the Son of God and certainly was not God.

“And they crucified Him; and they divided his garments, And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which means, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Mark 15:24, 34).

This episode sticks in the mind of many a Bible reader simply because it is so shocking and not what you would expect the very Son of God or God incarnate to come out with. And the fact that it is a dying man saying it makes it worse.

A good God would never forsake anyone especially the supposedly only fully righteous man who ever lived. Jesus asserted that God was always with him and would never desert him. For him to accuse God of turning his back on him would mean that he was admitting that he was a liar and that God was not good or that he wanted to insult God by smearing him as unreliable and lazy and evil.

The Christians try to get out of the implications of Jesus’ outburst by pointing out that what he said was the first line of Psalm 22. It is claimed that since the Psalm ends with trust in God that it was no insult against God for Jesus to use it. But if it starts with an insult it is still an insult and there is no evidence that Jesus recited the entire Psalm. Jesus would have chosen a better Psalm if he desired to honour God. He could have paraphrased and said, “My God, I feel abandoned by you”, which would not necessarily be saying that he believed God abandoned him. Why quote this verse when better ones are in the Psalm?
Go for the simplest and most straightforward interpretation. Jesus was accusing God of abandoning him. When you have the most simple and plain interpretation, it is only foolishness and obfuscation to go looking for others.

It is argued that the Psalm is not one of despair. “When the composer asks why God has forsaken him he only means he is wondering why God has abandoned him to his foes and to suffering. He is supposed to think that God has permitted this for a purpose so in leaving him at their mercy he is really not abandoning him but is helping them as best he can under the circumstances. He is only abandoning in a sense. Jesus is just asking why he is suffering. It could be a rhetorical question to make people wonder why God would make his son suffer. The line poses no threat to orthodox Christianity”.

But the composer complained that God was not helping him and said God was far from saving him and ignoring his prayers (Psalm 22:1,2). He was refusing to believe that God was doing him a favour by letting his enemies torment him. And the very fact that he was asking why it was happening to him shows that he did not trust God. If he had he would have been asking no questions. Then he changed his mind and decided that God was right. But there is no evidence that Jesus did the same even if he did commend his spirit to God.

Others say that Jesus did not mean it literally. If that is right then he broke his commandment against saying prayers you don’t mean in Matthew 6. He wouldn’t have said it if he didn’t mean it.

If Jesus was quoting the Psalm he was not the Son of God for he gave into despair.

And if Jesus was not quoting the Psalm but just used his own words that happened to match it we have the same bad implication. The Bible does not say that Jesus was quoting the Psalm at all. When the Jews said that he was calling Elijah he must have said something else that proved he was not reciting the Psalm but his heart was breaking for he was shouting that Elijah was not coming. They would not have sneered like this about a real Psalm in public. They had to revere the scriptures at least in front of the people. Elijah was to appear before the end of the world and if Jesus were hoping to make the world end and bring in the new kingdom of God by his death he would have called on Elijah to come.

There is no evidence that since Jesus shouted in Aramaic about “Eli, Eli” that this was misheard and thought to mean Elijah. The Jews were not that stupid. They testified that Jesus wanted to be saved from death by Elijah coming to take him down from the cross. They would not let a man give him bad wine for they wanted to see if Elijah would come (Mark 15:35,36). There must have been a drug in the wine so that he would die quicker but they did not want that in case Elijah would come and find him already dead.

It is significant that the note about the Psalm in the Amplified Bible presumes that it is bold to say that Jesus recited this Psalm on the cross.

A man who demanded to know why he had been crucified and not rescued could not be the Son of God because he does not have much confidence in God. He should have been making his peace with God instead of asking stupid questions at such a sombre and solemn time.

He even shouted it out not caring what people made of it. It was meant to pour scorn on his God. There is a sin called final impenitence. It is dying in an attitude of hostility to God. Chances are that Jesus died like that.

It is no answer to say that since Jesus was made guilty of our sins that he was abandoned and hated by God for that is an unjust theory. A just God could not accuse his Son of what he never did. It denies that Jesus was sinless when he was able to become responsible for the sins of others. And if he was God, God cannot abandon God.

It is no answer to say that Jesus did not know what he was saying for the gospels say that he was lucid even to the very end. He told John to look after his mother. Jesus did not blaspheme like that when he endured the overpowering agony in the Garden.

Did God let darkness come over the mind of his Son so that he thought he was abandoned? If he did he would not have let him say so. If Jesus succumbed to the temptation to lose faith in God then we cannot trust him as God’s revelation.  The Son of God cannot die putting his foot in it like many normal men wouldn’t.

Jesus said before he died that he would rise and reign in Heaven. Some deny this on the basis that the gospels really meant that he gave up on God on the cross. The gospels did mean that he lost his faith in God and his belief that he could come back and be king in Heaven. Jesus saying that he would have happy times does not mean that he could not have times of despair until they happen.

Jesus Christ was not God or the Son of God. Many saints suffered worse than Jesus did and didn’t abandon God.
Jesus Christ did not come to die on the cross. He prayed to escape his death and he complained on the cross and insulted God when he wasn’t rescued. The notion that he is our saviour who died for us is nonsense.
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W Haley, Whitaker House, Pennsylvania, undated
Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
In Defence of the Faith, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
In Search of Certainty, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
Jesus and the Four Gospels, John Drane,ion Books, Herts, 1984
Jesus Lived in India, Holger Kersten, Element, Dorset, 1994
Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson Pan, London 1985
Mind Out of Time, Ian Wilson, Gollanez, London, 1981
Mother of Nations, Joan Ashton, Veritas, Dublin, 1988
The Bible Fact or Fantasy? John Drane, Lion Books, Oxford, 1989
The Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln, Corgi, London, 1982
The Jesus Conspiracy, Holger Kersten and Elmar R Gruber, Element, Dorset, 1995
The Messianic Legacy, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln, Corgi, London, 1987
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, John Hick, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1993
The Passover Plot, Hugh Schonfield, Element Books, Dorset, 1996
The Resurrection Factor, Josh McDowell, Alpha Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1993
The Resurrection of Jesus, Pinchas Lapide, SPCK, London, 1984
The Truth of Christianity, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
The Turin Shroud is Genuine, Rodney Hoare, Souvenir Press, London, 1998HoarHo
 The Unauthorised Version, Robin Lane Fox, Penguin, Middlesex, 1992
The Vatican Papers, Nino Lo Bello, New English Library, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1982
The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Raymond E Brown Paulist Press, New York, 1973
The Womb and the Tomb, Hugh Montefiore, Fount – HarperCollins, London, 1992
Verdict on the Empty Tomb, Val Grieve, Falcon, London, 1976
Who Moved the Stone? Frank Morison, OM Publishing Cumbria, 1997
Why People believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer, Freeman, New York, 1997

No Copyright