The Sacrifice of Jesus from a Non-Religious Perspective.

[fallingblood]

This is a break away from a previous thread discussing whether or not Jesus sacrificed anything. As the title suggests, this is an argument that Jesus did in fact make a sacrifice, and that it can be appreciated from a non-religious perspective. The original article can be found here: The Sacrifice of Jesus in a Non-Religious Perspective. | Belzian For the sake of space, I have shortened my original article to a few paragraphs.

The Collins English Dictionary defines a sacrifice as “a surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable or of preventing some evil.” Such a definition can be problematic in regards to it being quite subjective. For instance, does surrendering ones life, even though they believe that death is not the end, constitute a sacrifice? Personally, I believe that such is still a sacrifice, as I do not think that a sacrifice is negated by the possibility of a reward. And as per the above definition, gaining something more desirable is part of the sacrificial experience. More so, if we put such a stipulation on a sacrifice, then we run into the problem of denying the sacrifice a many great men and women.

When we look at Jesus, we see that there was a surrendering of something of value. Most of use would agree that there is value in a human life. Looking at the historical figure which is Jesus (here I do have to differentiate from the Jesus of faith, and the Jesus of history. The Jesus is faith is the idea of Jesus that has been formed within the religious mind. The Jesus of history is the figure that did in fact exist. To find the Jesus of history, one has to strip the Biblical character of the myth and legends that formed around this persona later on. When we look at the Jesus of history, we see a figure that was an itinerate preacher, that went up against the authority, and was subsequently crucified. The resurrection dwells in the realm of the Jesus of faith), he does surrender his life. We see him being crucified by the Romans.

However, the loss of something of value is only one part of the equation. The second is the offering of something of greater value. This offering of something greater was a message of acceptance and equality. This message has done a great amount of good, and we see it influencing later generations, and activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr.

Much like Martin Luther King Jr., we see a message which was connected to the death of the figure. Both of these individuals had a message that at their basis taught acceptance (or equality). And each knew that their messages, the ideas they were spreading, had the possibility of leading to their deaths. Yet both continued teaching this idea, which eventually led to them sacrificing their lives.

 

[1137]

I agree that Jesus' sacrifice can be seen as good from a non-religious perspective, depending how you look at it. The thing is, this life actually is not that important if you believe in a life after or spirituality. I believe Jesus reached enlightenment, there was plenty of time in his "undocumented" life to work at it. If he tapped into something mystical and deeper, his physical life here would definitely not be as important to him. Sure he tried to help people reach it also, but there is not much sacrifice in dying when you will reach a better place after.

 

[Koldo]

I am particularly interested in how Jesus made a sacrifice.
Was it by not defending himself on trials? Or is there something else?

 

[fallingblood]

I am particularly interested in how Jesus made a sacrifice.
Was it by not defending himself on trials? Or is there something else?

It was by preaching a message, that benefited people, and being killed for that message.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree that Jesus' sacrifice can be seen as good from a non-religious perspective, depending how you look at it. The thing is, this life actually is not that important if you believe in a life after or spirituality. I believe Jesus reached enlightenment, there was plenty of time in his "undocumented" life to work at it. If he tapped into something mystical and deeper, his physical life here would definitely not be as important to him. Sure he tried to help people reach it also, but there is not much sacrifice in dying when you will reach a better place after.

The problem I see with the afterlife and sacrifice is that we then have to ignore a mass amount of sacrifices. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, would no longer be a sacrifice, as we believe in an afterlife as well. But I don't think that should negate it.

 

[Caladan]

Isn't it a bit more complicated?
from a non religious POV, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that according to the gospels narrative what Jesus did was fighting for his beliefs and eventually killed for his messianic proclamations which challenged the Roman social order and the Jewish social order?
I think that in order to establish a self sacrifice we need to go into detail a little bit more.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was by preaching a message, that benefited people, and being killed for that message.

While I understand that many Christians maintain this, I don't think it squares up with other aspects of Christian theology. I mean, if Christ is "the Lamb of God who comes ro take away the sins of the world", well, the important thing about a sacrificial lamb isn't what the lamb has to say, it's that the lamb is killed, period.

Also, I disagree with something you said in the OP: if Martin Luther King had shown up a week after being shot and announced that he was alive again, this would have put his "death" in a very different light. There's a reason (besides their respective politics) that MLK or JFK are considered martyrs and Reagan is not: Reagan survived his shooting. If you live, then you haven't really died.

I've heard Jesus' sacrifice described jokingly as "a bad weekend". While I probably wouldn't be that dismissive of it, I think that's closer to the mark than saying that he gave his life.

 

[Caladan]

In regards to MLK, can we establish a comparison between a social movement started by Jesus during the first century in the Roman province of Judea, to the social movement that MLK led?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't it a bit more complicated?
from a non religious POV, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that according to the gospels narrative what Jesus did was fighting for his beliefs and eventually killed for his messianic proclamations which challenged the Roman social order and the Jewish social order?
I think that in order to establish a self sacrifice we need to go into detail a little bit more.

If we're starting from a non-religious perspective, I'm not sure why we need to assume that the stories were written as faithful (or at least faithfully intended) recountings of literal events. When I read the Gospels, I see them more as a collection of attempts to hang different theologies on the framework of the basic story. I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that the authors (in whole or in part) really did mean to attribute whatever intent to any of the characters in the story.

 

[Dubio]

I don't believe Jesus's death had to do with atonement for sin. I think Jesus's life of teaching compassion, justice and equality and his willingness to die for that belief altered the course of society for the better. Maybe that's what God had in mind for Jesus. To steer society towards the right path and to give humans a model or way to become closer to God.

 

[Caladan]

If we're starting from a non-religious perspective, I'm not sure why we need to assume that the stories were written as faithful (or at least faithfully intended) recountings of literal events. When I read the Gospels, I see them more as a collection of attempts to hang different theologies on the framework of the basic story. I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that the authors (in whole or in part) really did mean to attribute whatever intent to any of the characters in the story.

Its possible to view the narrative in a more secular fashion, focusing on a social statement, on the Roman authorities, the religious establishment, Jesus ideals, etc.
after all I did post in this thread because I want do discuss *something*. I can just shrug the thread and say: 'we hav no proof that Jesus existed, let alone executed'. but then what would be the point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In regards to MLK, can we establish a comparison between a social movement started by Jesus during the first century in the Roman province of Judea, to the social movement that MLK led?

Well, for starters, I'm not sure we can say that Jesus really started the movement that became Christianity. I think it might be more accurate to say that others (Paul?) were the ones to start the movement and then *attributed* it to Jesus.

 

[Caladan]

Well, for starters, I'm not sure we can say that Jesus really started the movement that became Christianity. I think it might be more accurate to say that others (Paul?) were the ones to start the movement and then *attributed* it to Jesus.

This isn't realy what I am discussing. and I am not sure anyone is dicussing the creation of Christianity as the social movement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its possible to view the narrative in a more secular fashion, focusing on a social statement, on the Roman authorities, the religious establishment, Jesus ideals, etc.
after all I did post in this thread because I want do discuss *something*. I can just shrug the thread and say: 'we hav no proof that Jesus existed, let alone executed'. but then what would be the point?

My point is that the Gospels were each written with some sort of intent. If we approach them assuming that the intent for all of them was to document actual historical events, then we may miss out on the actual intent behind them.

My point wasn't to say "it could all be lies, so we might as well not bother looking"; it was to say that we should be careful not to come at the texts with presuppositions that we don't need to have in a secular mindset, and instead come at things with fresh eyes, being willing to consider evidence and clues that point to something other than the standard Christian conclusions.

 

[Koldo]

It was by preaching a message, that benefited people, and being killed for that message.

You are saying that if i do A, for the benefit of B, and i happen to be killed because i am doing A then i made a sacrifice, correct?

If we accept the term 'sacrifice' englobes this sort of attitude, doesn't it mean there are countless people sacrificing themselves daily?

If so, doesn't it mean his sacrifice was no more important than the sacrifice made by the average Joe?

 

[Caladan]

Well, for starters, I'm not sure we can say that Jesus really started the movement that became Christianity. I think it might be more accurate to say that others (Paul?) were the ones to start the movement and then *attributed* it to Jesus.

Sorry, yes I see what you are saying here. yes, this is one example.

 

[waitasec]

It was by preaching a message, that benefited people, and being killed for that message.

what was the message that benefitted people he was killed for?
was it rallying up a sense of solidarity within the jewish community in hopes to gather up a force and lead a revolt?

 

[outhouse]

Isn't it a bit more complicated?
from a non religious POV, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that according to the gospels narrative what Jesus did was fighting for his beliefs and eventually killed for his messianic proclamations which challenged the Roman social order and the Jewish social order?
I think that in order to establish a self sacrifice we need to go into detail a little bit more.

I agree.

Not only that I claim and am followed by many, or I follow . That in fact the romans killed him for causing a stink in the temple during their payday.

The romans did in fact kill yeshua and I dont feel any jewish priest had anything to do with it.


The only way you can claim yeshua sacrificed himself for his message would be if the jewish high priest had him killed. The romans didnt care what he preached they just wanted peace and yeshua disrupted it and was killed as soon as they could catch up with him.


We know the gospels are somewhat written for a roman audience and portray the jewish high priest as the bad guys. I dont find this a accurate view in any sense. we know its not. Combine that with the fact early christians were in fact antisemetic and that grew as seen in johns gospel. Its clear for me judaism wasnt involved in his death at all. thus no sacrifice

If we eliminate the high priest out, and just look at Romans, they could care less what he was preaching and we know he wasnt claiming to be the king of jews.


What we do know is that he did cause a small riot in the temple, that would be a death sentance. PERIOD

 

[Nakosis]

This is a break away from a previous thread discussing whether or not Jesus sacrificed anything. As the title suggests, this is an argument that Jesus did in fact make a sacrifice, and that it can be appreciated from a non-religious perspective. The original article can be found here: The Sacrifice of Jesus in a Non-Religious Perspective. | Belzian For the sake of space, I have shortened my original article to a few paragraphs.

As I view it, Jesus sacrificed his life to God and for the sake of man.
Not so much his crucifixion but his entire life was given, gave up by him for these two things. He had compassion for the plight of the poor and sick, the sinners in Judea. To the religious, being poor and sick was God's justice against the sinner.

Jesus worked for compassion and forgiveness of the sinner. Perhaps not so much by God but the people of Judea. A social change to regard the sinner as worthy of God's grace, not only the privileged, healthy and well off.

Jesus devoted/sacrificed his life for this message. He left with us his flesh and blood. The flesh is his teaching's. The blood is his spirit of compassion for his fellow man. The religious hierarchy killed him because he was a threat to their authority over God. He gave the sinner equal if not greater access to God. The authority of the Pharisee and Sadducee were their wealth and well being. Jesus challenged the idea that earthly prosperity makes one closer or favored by God.

They killed him because he showed them their material wealth had no spiritual value.

 

[outhouse]

It was by preaching a message, that benefited people, and being killed for that message.

exactly how did the romans in your view kill yeshua for preaching? they really didnt care what a man preached about in a temple. Plenty were preaching.


You have to show that yeshua committed suicide for the people to claim he sacrificed anything