It don't understand how does this answer the question "Why would he put himself in such a situation?". Why did he not save himself from this torture?
Yes he could have. So why did he not? Why would he put himself in such a situation?The NT doesn't focus on the pain. The point is, that he died and rose. The Jews did not make their sacrifices suffer. Luke even shaved a bit of pain off, when he cut and pasted from Matt. John just has him say "It's accomplished". How can a God suffer, without mentioning it? From whence do you derive his pain, except from a prophecy, which even you admit is wrong, by putting a beautiful white man up, and pretending it's Jesus? If he really was a mortal man, who knew no God, then yes, he suffered. But the Bible says he was in constant connection with God, and part of God, and knew that heaven awaited.
One method of explanation, is to accept that a real man, called Jesus was actually crucified. Once that occurs, the people who invented the religion had to make something of his martyrdom. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrection and escaped slaves, designed to humiliate, so the punishment is compatible with what Jesus supposedly did, and what Isaiah proscribes, so they may not have thought they could get away with redacting it to stoning, hanging, or beheading. Those punishments are more compatible with the charge of blasphemy, which is what he was supposedly accused of by the Jews, but they weren't dramatic enough.
There is something terribly suspicious about the speed with which Jesus was taken off the cross. The punishment was also called "Food for the crows"; it was designed to also humiliate the followers and relatives by denying burial, which was taboo in those days. You were supposed hang there until you were a skeleton, and the dogs had taken your legs. It was especially an insult to the Jews, who believed that a body hanging from a tree should be buried before nightfall, or that person was cursed. So, Jesus was taken off the cross really fast, because scripture demands it, not because the Romans would have let it happen. We can see from the hatred against Jesus, with "free Barrabas" and people spitting on him, that he would not have been given special favour by anyone
, to be buried after a few hours on the cross.The authors wanted to meld contradictory themes together. On one hand they wanted him crucified (the worst punishment), but on the other, they wanted him buried in a nice tomb, and not appear to suffer, or lose dignity. They wanted Jesus despised, but also loved. They wanted him to be a God, but also a man. They wanted him ugly, but beautiful. They wanted him powerful, yet passive and powerless. They wanted him to be a profound teacher, but ignored. They wanted him famous, but failed to get anyone to document him. The result is a story that most Christians swallow, even though it doesn't make any sense.
(And I probably missed a few contradictions.) The more of these profound contradictions exist, the more you can buy into the story that God was involved, because only God can be that enigmatic.) Whatever the cost, they never wanted us to see a real man, so he vanished as quickly as he appeared - a virgin, from a virgin.
So, when you ask a question about "What point", you are really missing the point that the story is a totally contrived wrongness and scriptural mashing, from start to finish. I can just invent points, or doctrines, but they had 100 years to think about it.
One way we could absolve sin, is to make Jesus really ugly, and put all the world's sin in him, like the portrait of Dorian Gray, then put him on the cross, hated, and let him die with the dogs. Hey presto, all sin has now been cast off in one man. However, if I do that, I have to come up with some mumbo jumbo about why people listened to him. Maybe he had a temporary aura of God, which made him look good. I can just make stuff up, and if people believe it, then it sells. You have to realise that you are looking at the product that sold, not the one that failed.
They became apocrypha.
ED: not to now.