Did Jesus commit suicide?

[iam1me]

You know as well as I do that, when dealing with theological issues, we often must go beyond “textbook definitions,” because we’re dealing with holistic human parameters that include imagination and emotion. Your insistence is like the religious authorities who wanted Jesus to do the same (is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?).

You are WAY off base here. Discussing a theological issue doesn't mean you throw out your dictionary and make things up as they feel right to you. And your understanding of Jesus' response to the Pharisees is questionable at best. Jesus was speaking of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law. Not of making things up as they please you.

If the scriptures spent time defining, directly or indirectly, a biblical definition of suicide, then you might be justified in appealing to that definition vs using a modern dictionary. You might also look at the writings of relevant Church Fathers who spoke against it to see if the specially qualified their discussion of the matter in anyway. However, as it stands you lack and justification for deviating from the common definition of the term. And, even if you had such justification, you have yet to provide the "religious" definition to which you allude.

Here is a link you might find helpful: What is SUICIDE? definition of SUICIDE (Black's Law Dictionary)
This provides a well-founded legal definition. Here is another: suicide

Finding a legal connotation of a term is not the same thing as demonstrating that the term is in general a legal term. The common usage of the term, to which I clearly refer in the OP, has nothing to do with a legal definition.

On the other hand, note how the primary connotation for murder is legal in nature even in a non-legal dictionary:

Definition of murder | Dictionary.com
noun
1 Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, ormurder two).
2 Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3 a group or flock of crows.
verb (used with object)
1 Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
2 to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
verb (used without object)
1 to commit murder.
​

Suicide is a selfish act (not included in the definition, because definitions generally don’t deal in emotional judgments, as religious implications must do). Because, spiritually, one’s life is not one’s own. One’s life belongs to God. When one commits (note the operative legal term “commit”) suicide, one steals one’s life from God. Since it is the spiritual nature of human beings to be “pack animals” (per God’s assertion in Genesis that it is not good for us to be alone) — we form emotional relationships and attachments that have a direct bearing upon our well-being and that of others. Since, in suicide, one is thinking of oneself and one’s own emotional well-being, or dealing with shame or guilt in an unhealthy or unrealistic way (i.e. “they’d be better off without me), to take one’s life causes emotional harm to those to whom the perpetrator (note the legal term “perpetrator”) is close. That constitutes a selfish act.

As you correctly note, your assertion that suicide is selfish isn't part of the definition but is instead your own personal emotional judgement. That is not an objective basis for evaluating theological issues, or basically anything else.

Suicide is in no way a “heroic” act. it is generally considered to be a highly cowardly act — as a way “out” of having to deal with unpleasant emotional strain. Unless you’re prepared to call Jesus a “coward,” or unless you can show that Jesus just didn’t want to deal with unpleasant emotional strain, or unless you can show that Jesus was mentally unhealthy, or are prepared to make that judgment call, Jesus did not commit suicide by allowing himself to be taken.

That highly depends upon the context. A soldier jumping on a grenade is suicide. If he did it for the purpose of saving others, that would be considered heroic. The definition of suicide is not mutually exclusive to heroism, altruism, etc.

Remember that the Gospels are all written from a position of hindsight, meaning that Jesus “willingly going” may or may not have been the actual case.

Ah, yes, the scriptures conflict with you so better toss 'em out -right? You need to go learn to be objective rather than rely upon what feels good to you

 

[iam1me]

In my opinion ... He didn't commit suicide anymore than a soldier who lays on a grenade to save his friends. Jesus died to save others and we see He looked to find another way (Matthew 26:39) but there was no other way. So, He died as a real hero rather than a suicidal person.

Is committing suicide and committing a heroic act mutually exclusive? I don't see that in the definition.

 

[74x12]

Is committing suicide and committing a heroic act mutually exclusive? I don't see that in the definition.

Technically not. Just that I don't want people to be confused on the difference.

 

[iam1me]

Technically not. Just that I don't want people to be confused on the difference.

Aren't you introducing confusion by drawing distinctions that aren't technically true?

 

[74x12]

Aren't you introducing confusion by drawing distinctions that aren't technically true?

Did I really say that? If you read my post carefully you'll see the word "anymore" which makes a subtle difference.

But, do you want people to think it's a good idea to commit suicide because "Jesus did"? I don't think you do. Because Jesus did it for a good reason. So there is a difference even if the definition is just black and white.

 

[iam1me]

Did I really say that? If you read my post carefully you'll see the word "anymore" which makes a subtle difference.

The clear implication of your words is that it is not suicide. Nor did you correct this implication when I pointed out the error with it. But it is good that you have acknowledged that suicide and heroism are not mutually exclusive - and that the heroic act of a solider intentionally jumping on a grenade to save his comrades is in fact a form of suicide.

But, do you want people to think it's a good idea to commit suicide because "Jesus did"? I don't think you do. Because Jesus did it for a good reason. So there is a difference even if the definition is just black and white.

I think it's a good idea to be correct in our usage of our terms, vs speaking non-sense. And yes, I do believe giving your life to save others as Jesus did is a great teaching. No one is talking about going out and killing yourself for the fun of it - you are attacking a straw-man.

There is additionally important theological implications, such as in Catholic Theology where suicide is treated as an unforgivable sin.

 

[74x12]

The clear implication of your words is that it is not suicide. Nor did you correct this implication when I pointed out the error with it. But it is good that you have acknowledged that suicide and heroism are not mutually exclusive - and that the heroic act of a solider intentionally jumping on a grenade to save his comrades is in fact a form of suicide.

I'm sorry; I just think you're being technical.

I think it's a good idea to be correct in our usage of our terms, vs speaking non-sense. And yes, I do believe giving your life to save others as Jesus did is a great teaching. No one is talking about going out and killing yourself for the fun of it - you are attacking a straw-man.

There is additionally important theological implications, such as in Catholic Theology where suicide is treated as an unforgivable sin.

Look, I also think the Catholic church says a lot of wacky things; but are you being fair to the Catholic church this time? I don't believe they mean suicide in the same sense that you do. That's why it's important to make a distinction. Because you're taking a strict dictionary definition and applying it to everyone else who isn't necessarily going by the same strict interpretation.

That being said. I don't think they know enough to say it's an unforgivable sin. They should leave the judgment to God.

 

[wizanda]

So then, Jesus intentionally ended his own life - laying it down of his own accord. This would seem to fit the standard definition of suicide to me, but perhaps I am missing something.

The Gospel of John is made up by the Sanhedrin to cover their own backs, and make it look like it was God's plan to murder his Messiah.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:22-23, Matthew 20:18-19, Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31-32, Mark 10:33-34, Luke 9:21-22, Luke 18:31-33), and prophecy relate the Sanhedrin murdered the Messiah Divorcing Israel in the process (Zechariah 11).

In the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19), it relates they will murder him claiming we get his inheritance, and yet ultimately all who follow this will be condemned by God.

In my opinion.

 

[iam1me]

I'm sorry; I just think you're being technical.

I'm using the term correctly, not making up fictions about why the word shouldn't be used

Look, I also think the Catholic church says a lot of wacky things; but are you being fair to the Catholic church this time? I don't believe they mean suicide in the same sense that you do. That's why it's important to make a distinction.

I am being fair: I'm providing an open thread to explore the concept. Of course I will likely follow up in a more catholic-dense forum after this as I don't feel that I've had a good representation here thus far. If they have a qualified definition of suicide that they can point to in the Church Fathers or the like, I am happy to entertain it (vs just making up private definitions on the spot as seen in this thread).

Because you're taking a strict dictionary definition and applying it to everyone else who isn't necessarily going by the same strict interpretation.

People should know what words mean when they use them, especially in a theological/philosophical context. It's kind of important to know what you are saying. If there is justification for using a unique definition within a particular context that differs from the common usage, then that's OK. However, such justification and definition must be provided. In my preliminary searches I haven't seen any evidence that the Catholic Church has a unique definition for suicide.

That being said. I don't think they know enough to say it's an unforgivable sin. They should leave the judgment to God.

Agreed. My guess is that some theologians wanted to condemn Judas to hell, and clung onto his suicide as a means of explaining why he cannot be redeemed. Just a hypothesis at this point mind, I need to research the origins of the doctrine more.

 

[iam1me]

The Gospel of John is made up by the Sanhedrin to cover their own backs, and make it look like it was God's plan to murder his Messiah.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:22-23, Matthew 20:18-19, Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31-32, Mark 10:33-34, Luke 9:21-22, Luke 18:31-33), and prophecy relate the Sanhedrin murdered the Messiah Divorcing Israel in the process (Zechariah 11).

In the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19), it relates they will murder him claiming we get his inheritance, and yet ultimately all who follow this will be condemned by God.

In my opinion.

Ha, well rejecting the Gospel of John appears to be a popular view in this thread. If we started discussing the Trinity most would do a 180 lolz.

The Synoptic Gospels may lack the explicitness of John on this point, but they also maintain that Jesus was sent to die for our sins. This was always his intended role that he willingly followed.

Matthew 16:21-23 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Matthew 26:2 “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”

Mark 8:31-33 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Luke 9:22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Luke 24:6-7 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’
​

So even if we go with the Synoptic Gospels we see that Jesus taught that he must suffer and die and be raised to life on the third day. When Peter tried to dissuade him from this, Jesus rebuked him for thinking of only human concerns vs God's will. He says that Peter was a stumbling block for him. Why? Because he could have chosen to not die. He could have ran away. His sacrifice had to be just that - something willingly given. Peter was tempting him to save his life.

 

[wizanda]

The Synoptic Gospels may lack the explicitness of John on this point, but they also maintain that Jesus was sent to die for our sins.

Yeshua was not sent to die, he was sent to test humanity, and most have failed; as it is Balaam teachings to accuse God of first degree murder.

If we started discussing the Trinity most would do a 180 lolz.

The Trinity is mainly shown from John; so I agree it is another reason to see it as false.

His sacrifice had to be just that - something willingly given.

Yeshua was murdered, and prophecy relates those who think they get something from his death, will be condemned by God (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

In my opinion.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I would agree that the desired end result was not death itself, however he had to be willing to die to accomplish it. He was very cognizant of this fact and had to willing choose to die as a means to an end.

So if the desired end result isn't death, then by definition, it is not suicide.

On what basis do you assert such a thing? That's a bold claim. But good for you for finally admitting that you were in fact ignoring this scripture. Now address it.

I did address it. I even cited a source for this. So we can look at what the Jesus Seminar says here, and they say it probably wasn't Jesus. It's completely unique to John, so it's not independently attested to. We know John was creating theology, as we can look at other places that he either adds a story that no one else has, or he adds to stories that we do find elsewhere. The additional parts are almost always theologically motivated. The whole thing is also ripped out of the Old Testament.

If you think there's a larger context here that would meaningfully change our interpretation of what Jesus said, then please go on and explain and justify an alternative interpretation.

I did. I've provided such twice now in different manners. You even quote it and respond to it.

Here is the explanation again. If we don't ignore the passage, and assume it was said by Jesus, we have to look at it in context. You can't take a verse out of context and then claim it means something. We have to look at the full chapter as Jesus creates an analogy in verse 1-5 and then interprets them in verses 7-18. So you're only quoting from the interpretation part, which is symbolic. More so, we have to realize that Jesus is referencing Hebrew scripture. You can't understand the passage without understanding the reference. The entire passage is talking about an ideal leader, which is symbolized by a shepherd. Jesus even states this in the verses leading up to the text you took out of context.

Lolz. Yea, no that's not at all what he is saying in that passage. Nothing in the context of that passage leads us to think that he was merely speaking of being in a risky position. He was adamant that no one takes his life, but that he lays his life down.

So we have already established that the desire, or intention, wasn't death. Second, just saying lol isn't an argument. You need to offer up a real rebuttal. I explain that is what he is saying, and I point out how portions of it are taken from the Hebrew scripture.

And literally, this is largely what is talked about in the verse preceding what you took out of context.

What your latest response has shown me is that you're clearly not trying to have a conversation here. Laughing at an explanation and then saying, no, none of that, without adding an explanation why, isn't a debate. It's not a rebuttal. More so, the fact that you keep saying that I'm not explaining things, when I clearly have, and you even quote those explanations, shows that you don't want to have a real conversation. I'm not sure what you want.

 

[amatuerscholar]

Ha, well rejecting the Gospel of John appears to be a popular view in this thread. If we started discussing the Trinity most would do a 180 lolz.

Most likely not. That really is just a false argument.

The Synoptic Gospels may lack the explicitness of John on this point, but they also maintain that Jesus was sent to die for our sins. This was always his intended role that he willingly followed.

Knowing you have to die doesn't equal suicide. You're doing what you're chastising others for, making up a definition.

For instance, being handed over to be crucified isn't the same as intentionally killing oneself. Saying that he has to suffer isn't the same as intentionally killing oneself.

​

So even if we go with the Synoptic Gospels we see that Jesus taught that he must suffer and die and be raised to life on the third day. When Peter tried to dissuade him from this, Jesus rebuked him for thinking of only human concerns vs God's will. He says that Peter was a stumbling block for him. Why? Because he could have chosen to not die. He could have ran away. His sacrifice had to be just that - something willingly given. Peter was tempting him to save his life.

You're again taking things out of context, and you're twisting them to your conclusion. That really doesn't work.

Again though, sacrifice is different from suicide.

 

[sojourner]

You are WAY off base here. Discussing a theological issue doesn't mean you throw out your dictionary and make things up as they feel right to you.

I didn't say that we were to "throw out" the definitions. I said that we needed to go beyond just the definitions. You're creating a straw man.

And your understanding of Jesus' response to the Pharisees is questionable at best. Jesus was speaking of the Spirit of the Law vs the Letter of the Law.

Isn't that what you're doing? Questioning the "written parameters?"

If the scriptures spent time defining, directly or indirectly, a biblical definition of suicide, then you might be justified in appealing to that definition vs using a modern dictionary. You might also look at the writings of relevant Church Fathers who spoke against it to see if the specially qualified their discussion of the matter in anyway. However, as it stands you lack and justification for deviating from the common definition of the term.

If you were to ask any of the church authorities, they'd tell you that Jesus' self-sacrifice wasn't a suicide.

Finding a legal connotation of a term is not the same thing as demonstrating that the term is in general a legal term.

But when making a determination of suicide, legal connotations are appropriate and necessary.

As you correctly note, your assertion that suicide is selfish isn't part of the definition but is instead your own personal emotional judgement.

No, I didn't make that assertion. You made that assertion. If it isn't selfish, then what is it? It's certainly not altruistic. It absolutely is an act of selfishness, because it prioritizes one's own feelings above those of others. That's selfishness.

That highly depends upon the context. A soldier jumping on a grenade is suicide.

No it's not. If that's the case, then just by signing up, and volunteering for deployment could be considered "suicide" by your parameters. And that's just not the case.
Here's a link you might find helpful: Operational Criteria for Determining Suicide

It describes the criteria for making a determination of suicide. The first is "self-inflicted." Again, Jesus didn't nail himself to the cross, nor lift himself into the air upon it. The Romans did that. You're conflating self-sacrifice with suicide. The impetuses are completely different.

Ah, yes, the scriptures conflict with you so better toss 'em out -right?

That's not what I said. When did the phrase "toss 'em out" ever appear in my posts? I merely raise a question as to how absolutely factual the texts are in this regard. We do that in the exegetical process all the time. A basic seminary class in biblical exegesis might help you in that regard.

 

[sojourner]

Is committing suicide and committing a heroic act mutually exclusive? I don't see that in the definition.

Look at the criteria for making a determination of suicide. The difference is in the impetus. You’re not allowing for that.

 

[iam1me]

Yeshua was not sent to die, he was sent to test humanity, and most have failed; as it is Balaam teachings to accuse God of first degree murder.

He was sent to die according to all of the Gospels and epistles.

The Trinity is mainly shown from John; so I agree it is another reason to see it as false.

You don't need to reject John to reject the Trinity. John is actually a wealth of anti-Trinitarian material. John 1:1 can be addressed easily by noting that Moses, angels, and men are called God/god(s) throughout scripture. It is the scriptural norm for God's mediators to be addressed as if God himself.

Yeshua was murdered, and prophecy relates those who think they get something from his death, will be condemned by God (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

In my opinion.

Those verses don't say what you want them to say, sorry. They are talking about passing on the blessings to others - aka, the Gentiles - because of the bad tenants (the Jewish people)

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

 

[iam1me]

So if the desired end result isn't death, then by definition, it is not suicide.

If you can show from the definition that it only counts as suicide if the desired end result is death then you'd have a case. However, there's no such qualification in the definition.

I did address it. I even cited a source for this. So we can look at what the Jesus Seminar says here, and they say it probably wasn't Jesus. It's completely unique to John, so it's not independently attested to. We know John was creating theology, as we can look at other places that he either adds a story that no one else has, or he adds to stories that we do find elsewhere. The additional parts are almost always theologically motivated. The whole thing is also ripped out of the Old Testament.
I did. I've provided such twice now in different manners. You even quote it and respond to it.

John's was a distinct testimony from the Synoptic Gospels. That doesn't mean he was making things up. You are jumping to unjustified conclusions.

Here is the explanation again. If we don't ignore the passage, and assume it was said by Jesus, we have to look at it in context. You can't take a verse out of context and then claim it means something. We have to look at the full chapter as Jesus creates an analogy in verse 1-5 and then interprets them in verses 7-18. So you're only quoting from the interpretation part, which is symbolic. More so, we have to realize that Jesus is referencing Hebrew scripture. You can't understand the passage without understanding the reference. The entire passage is talking about an ideal leader, which is symbolized by a shepherd. Jesus even states this in the verses leading up to the text you took out of context.

You are appealing to a wider context but then fail to follow through and show how this wider context should lead us to a different interpretation. So you've said a lot of nothing.

So we have already established that the desire, or intention, wasn't death. Second, just saying lol isn't an argument. You need to offer up a real rebuttal. I explain that is what he is saying, and I point out how portions of it are taken from the Hebrew scripture.

The end goal wasn't death, but the death was very much intentional as a means to an end. You have failed to meaningfully address this and instead are trying to dance around this obvious truth.

And literally, this is largely what is talked about in the verse preceding what you took out of context.

What your latest response has shown me is that you're clearly not trying to have a conversation here. Laughing at an explanation and then saying, no, none of that, without adding an explanation why, isn't a debate. It's not a rebuttal. More so, the fact that you keep saying that I'm not explaining things, when I clearly have, and you even quote those explanations, shows that you don't want to have a real conversation. I'm not sure what you want.

I explained why you were wrong, but here let me repeat it for you: "Nothing in the context of that passage leads us to think that he was merely speaking of being in a risky position. He was adamant that no one takes his life, but that he lays his life down."

 

[iam1me]

Most likely not. That really is just a false argument.

Trying to make everything about you? lolz. It's a statistical argument - most Christians are Trinitarians.

Knowing you have to die doesn't equal suicide. You're doing what you're chastising others for, making up a definition.
For instance, being handed over to be crucified isn't the same as intentionally killing oneself. Saying that he has to suffer isn't the same as intentionally killing oneself.

Knowing people are going to kill you and intentionally taking actions to allow that to happen so that you can die is suicide, by definition. He could have ran away. He could have fought. Peter even tried to dissuade him from it - and he rebuked him for attempting to tempt him away from fulfilling God's will for him: to die on the cross.

You're again taking things out of context, and you're twisting them to your conclusion. That really doesn't work.

You are welcome to provide your own interpretation of the passage and show why I'm wrong. Why did he rebuke Peter for only looking at human concerns vs God's?

Again though, sacrifice is different from suicide.

Indeed, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Both apply here.

 

[iam1me]

I didn't say that we were to "throw out" the definitions. I said that we needed to go beyond just the definitions. You're creating a straw man.

You are throwing out the definition when you decide to make up your own private qualifiers and definitions for terms. It's completely un-objective.

Isn't that what you're doing? Questioning the "written parameters?"

Yes I am looking at the Spirit of the matter, thanks

If you were to ask any of the church authorities, they'd tell you that Jesus' self-sacrifice wasn't a suicide.

"Church authorities" are irrelevant. What matters is the truth.

But when making a determination of suicide, legal connotations are appropriate and necessary.

Not at all - no. You simply need to know the definition of suicide and the relevant details of a death to determine if it was a suicide. It's no different than knowing if any other term applies - know the definition and know the relevant details to deduce whether a term applies or not. No law or legal connotation required (unless the term/connotation in question is legal in nature).

No, I didn't make that assertion. You made that assertion. If it isn't selfish, then what is it? It's certainly not altruistic. It absolutely is an act of selfishness, because it prioritizes one's own feelings above those of others. That's selfishness.

You said: "not included in the definition, because definitions generally don’t deal in emotional judgments, as religious implications must do." If it's not part of the definition,as you admit, then this emotional judgement is coming from you. Do you deny it? that's rhetorical, by the way. You clearly are applying emotional judgements to the term and attacking those rather than addressing the actual definition.

To answer your question though: the term "suicide" is neutral by itself. Only contextual information can objectively lead us to a conclusion about a given instance of suicide being selfish, altruistic, etc.

No it's not. If that's the case, then just by signing up, and volunteering for deployment could be considered "suicide" by your parameters. And that's just not the case.
Here's a link you might find helpful: Operational Criteria for Determining Suicide

It describes the criteria for making a determination of suicide. The first is "self-inflicted." Again, Jesus didn't nail himself to the cross, nor lift himself into the air upon it. The Romans did that. You're conflating self-sacrifice with suicide. The impetuses are completely different.

No you couldn't draw the conclusion that volunteering for deployment is suicide from what I've said. Not unless the individual did so intentionally while thinking it would kill them as a result.

Also, it's fine to research the issue - but the only relevant evidence for this discussion is scripture and the dictionary.

That's not what I said. When did the phrase "toss 'em out" ever appear in my posts? I merely raise a question as to how absolutely factual the texts are in this regard. We do that in the exegetical process all the time. A basic seminary class in biblical exegesis might help you in that regard.

You don't have to explicitly something to communicate it. It's called an implication. A GE course in Logic and Critical Thinking might help you in that regard.

In your case, you refuse to evaluate the usage of the term 'suicide' based upon its definition - but instead insist upon adding your own private, emotionally charged qualifications to the term and judging the usage of the term accordingly. You are thus implicitly tossing out the proper definition in favor of something completely un-objective.

 

[iam1me]

Look at the criteria for making a determination of suicide. The difference is in the impetus. You’re not allowing for that.

What determines if something is a suicide is if it matches the definition. End of story.