Hi Steve,

Thanks for your response. Here are a few lengthy thoughts about the issues you raised.

1. On the topic of Jesus as God and man. That is what most theologians refer to as the hypostatic union. I try to understand it as human experience through a divine lens, so having the capabilities to exercise divine ‘omnipotence’ but choosing to limit oneself to the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual boundaries of the human experience. Of course this is my understanding of a fairly complex and ‘mysterious’ (for lack of better word) aspect of the Christ, but that’s where I stand on that. The ‘show’ of the crucifixion as you call it is no longer a spectacle in that sense as it is in every way a fully human experience, and ultimately did no favours for the Christ. I mean, here we are two millennium later still debating the veracity of the entire ordeal. Moreover, as you say, if any god could go through a torture session and resurrect couple days later, why stop there? Why be crucified at all? Why not prove one’s omnipotence in another less gruesome and more undeniable way? Questions we all have. And as much as I’m interested in the why and how of Christ’s crucifixion, I am also very interested in the early Roman social context and the message that the crucifixion would have sent in a deeply religious and hierarchical society, fixated on class, possession, and shame (somewhat similar to our own now). To me, there is something telling about a divine Character who was willing to endure a gruesome death reserved for the worst of their society, even if to raise again in 3 days. Perhaps one could call it a spectacle of martyrdom but I am much more inclined to consider it as a demonstration of religious accessibility and social inclusion in a society predicated on exclusivity and shame.

2. The difference between human sacrifice formerly forbidden and the sacrifice of the Christ is mostly about free-will. Human sacrifice whether we consider it in the social contexts of the Hebrew Bible or analysed in completely disparate societies such as Igboland (for eg the ‘osu’) in Western Africa tends to be a system of fixed rituals in which individuals of certain classes and social orders are destined to servanthood or in extreme cases death for the sake of a chief or to appease a deity. One had minimal autonomy in terms of leaving these positions and were classified in those groupings for generations. Again, this points to issues of social mobility and exclusion, and more precisely the lack of free-will for those involved. One could say that Christ too was ‘destined’ for sacrifice, but as the apostle John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." That is to say, there was no destiny of the Christ that the Christ did not ‘write’ or decree himself within our understanding of divine freewill.

3. History aids much when considering the timing of Christ’s arrival and crucifixion. The expansiveness of the Roman Empire, the prevalence of Greek and Latin as languages of the empire (amongst other regional tongues), trade routes, colonial/imperialist practices etc contributed greatly to the manner in which the message of the Christ spread. I have also thought a lot about the exclusivity of Christ arriving at a specific place at a specific time, but historical accounts lead me to question whether the Gospel message would have had the same spreading power had it occurred in Asia, Africa, the Americas etc. These empires were vast and more complex then we often give them credit for, but they may have lacked the social infrastructure to make the Gospel a mobile message. But, the Roman Empire had control of the entire Mediterranean from c. 30 BC to 470 BC, making it an ideal location for transport into Northern Europe, Asia and Northern Africa (the latter two especially) in a way in which may not have been possible had Christ been born elsewhere. As for multiple resurrections occurring at once in multiple places, that brings me to the same question you proposed earlier about the ‘show’ of the resurrection. Various resurrections in various locations sounds to me much more like a god trying to dupe humanity by replicating (and banalising human suffering) in contract to what Christ endured. But that’s my personal opinion.

4. On the point about the confusion within Christianity and the creation of numerous sects, I think it’s probably best to separate the branches of Christianity from other religious practices as a whole. Christians may disagree greatly about various doctrines of the faith such as baptism, the Trinity, the Sabbath, impure foods, dressing etc. But these are typically matters of doctrine and not dogma. Whether one believes that baptism is necessary for salvation or whether Saturday is the true Sabbath has no bearing on the point of the Christ (I.e. to save the whole world) nor the message of the Christ (i.e. to love and serve the whole world). These disagreements are humans being humans and looking for ways further classify themselves. Majority of these arguments have no substantial bearing from a practical ‘live like Christ’ perspective neither do they have an eternal one. When it comes to other religions, I believe they exist simply because humans have choice. To question the abundance of other religious thought and why an ‘all-knowing’ god would permit this and the confusion that follows is to question the nature and purpose of choice and that’s a different discussion entirely I think.

5. As it pertains to divine love and wisdom, religious wars and the general traumas of this world, I often have similar questions. But then I remember that war, suffering, trauma etc are not religious problems (as much as religion has been a part of them)— they are human ones. These issues exist and persist in regions committed to non-Abrahamic religious codes and even officially non-religious societies altogether. In any case, we all are deeply unsettled by this and still question how divine love and wisdom can exist within it. But, I am trying to learn to not measure divinity through the limitations of my humanity because I will always be left wanting. I am committed to a life-time of embracing my skepticism and learning as much as I can from the Source and being led in love by the Source even if I never fully understand all of the Source.

Thanks for commenting and giving me lots to think about this weekend. All the best, God bless.