The Sacrifice of Jesus from a Non-Religious Perspective.

[outhouse]

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.

that is biblical yeshu anot historical yeshua.

there is a difference.

do you not take into account how violent yeshua was in the temple? would not the romans being security for the event have killed him for starting a riot?

 

[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?

Just another thought - I guess another way of putting what I'm trying to get at would be this:

We're starting with a set of events with major mythic content that have significant symbolic and metaphoric meaning that are supposed to have literally occurred, although we can't reconcile them with factual reality in the form they're given to us. If we do want to reconcile them with reality, we have two options:

- strip out the mythical elements until we get something that's factually plausible but lacks the symbolism and metaphor of the original story.

- keep the symbolism and metaphor, but get rid of the requirement that it all have a factual, historical basis.

I think that either approach has reasons in its favour, and I don't think that either one should be automatically chosen without considering whether it's more appropriate than the other option.

 

[Caladan]

strip out the mythical elements until we get something that's factually plausible but lacks the symbolism and metaphor of the original story.

- keep the symbolism and metaphor, but get rid of the requirement that it all have a factual, historical basis.

I think I would like to strip the narrative from the theological dimension, and focus on what I stated earlier: In regards to the MLK analogy, 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?
to illustrate this more. can we say that Jesus, like MLK, was killed because he led social reforms, or because it was deemed by the authorities that he posed a threat to the the Roman authority and to the public order?

 

[Nakosis]

that is biblical yeshu anot historical yeshua.

there is a difference.

do you not take into account how violent yeshua was in the temple? would not the romans being security for the event have killed him for starting a riot?

You have access to a non-biblical historical account?

Just claims of he being a messiah may have been enough for the Romans.

In the temple according to the Bible he drove out the market and started healing the sick in it. The chief Priests and Scribes were jealous because the people he was helping were calling him the "Son of David".

They were selling doves, to the wealthy?, for sacrifice so the wealthy could pay for their sins? The poor could not pay for their sins. The temple couldn't make any money off them.

I wouldn't exactly call the scene a riot. However according to the Bible it did upset the religious authority.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Still makes no logical sense, but I understand the emotional appeal and why it resonates with certain types of people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I would like to strip the narrative from the theological dimension, and focus on what I stated earlier: In regards to the MLK analogy, 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?
to illustrate this more. can we say that Jesus, like MLK, was killed because he led social reforms, or because it was deemed by the authorities that he posed a threat to the the Roman authority and to the public order?

In the context of the Gospel narrative, Jesus was kilked to fulfill all righteousness and to release humanity from the Law. If you're asking what real-world events could have ended up as the Gospel story when they were re-interpreted, I'm not really sure.

Edit: but thinking about your question a bit more, it seems to me that if Jesus was so great a social reformer that someone decided he needed to be killed, he'd have a legacy outside his own followers, no?

 

[fallingblood]

Still makes no logical sense, but I understand the emotional appeal and why it resonates with certain types of people.

Can you please shed light on why it makes no logical sense?

 

[outhouse]

Just claims of he being a messiah may have been enough for the Romans.

many people claimed to be a messiah.

Who exactly states yeshua claimed he was the messiah??

You have access to a non-biblical historical account?

does not change the fact the historical yeshua is not biblical yeshua

In the temple according to the Bible he drove out the market

yes this would be starting a riot

They were selling doves, to the wealthy?, for sacrifice so the wealthy could pay for their sins? The poor could not pay for their sins. The temple couldn't make any money off them.

you dint get to do anything without paying, you had manditory temple tax. Animals had to be clean and disease and blemish free. with the distance many had to buy livestock in the temple for BBQ/sacrifice

300,000 to 400,000 jews were there for passover, this was big money

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can you please shed light on why it makes no logical sense?

Ah, I see. I misread. The narrative still makes no sense as presented, however, as a non-religious rationalization and analysis of such situations, there is a theoretical argument to be made that it resulted in some kind of overall positive benefit. I don't think anyone knows anywhere close to all the variables involved to make this determination, but it does make logical sense if the argument is accepted as presented.

 

[Nakosis]

many people claimed to be a messiah.

Who exactly states yeshua claimed he was the messiah??

I suspect enough claimed it for him it could have been a concerned.

does not change the fact the historical yeshua is not biblical yeshua

What other source is there for a historical Jesus? You may like to see a difference but if one chooses to use the Bible in the first place, I don't see much of a point.

yes this would be starting a riot.

Must of been not much of one if he took to healing people right after.

you dint get to do anything without paying, you had manditory temple tax. Animals had to be clean and disease and blemish free. with the distance many had to buy livestock in the temple for BBQ/sacrifice

300,000 to 400,000 jews were there for passover, this was big money

Religion is often about money and power. Things haven't change much.

 

[Falvlun]

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

I'm not sure why this would follow. If Jesus believed that his death would be for the greater good-- which various Biblical passages do indicate that he believed that-- then how is that not a sacrifice?

 

[fallingblood]

I think I would like to strip the narrative from the theological dimension, and focus on what I stated earlier: In regards to the MLK analogy, 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?
to illustrate this more. can we say that Jesus, like MLK, was killed because he led social reforms, or because it was deemed by the authorities that he posed a threat to the the Roman authority and to the public order?

I'm going to comment here first, as I think much of this discussion comes back to this.

I'm going to start off by saying that I am making a few assumptions with my argument: 3 assumptions in fact. The first is that Jesus was, to some point, followed John the Baptist. Some would argue that Jesus was a disciple of John. I will only argue that Jesus, at the very least, subscribed to the ideology that John was preaching, which is why he would go to John to be baptized.

The second assumption is that we can discern some of the teachings of Jesus from Paul. This is probably a more contentious issue. However, I think it is logical that Paul would not have followed Jesus if their teachings were completely incompatible. So we should be able to take from Paul some ideas that Jesus had.

The third assumption is that we can be fairly certain that Jesus dined with the outcast of society (tax collectors, etc) because it was not something that one would seemingly make up. It is embarrassing, not what we would expect, and gave him a bad reputation.

Putting this all together, we can form a basic idea of what Jesus taught. As with John, he most likely taught that the Kingdom of God was close at hand.

As with Paul, he probably taught some form of equality or acceptance (such as his argument that the greatest of the laws is to love one another as themselves (actually the second greatest, but up there)). Paul probably was much more into this teaching than Jesus, but we still can probably see some ideas from Jesus being present here.

This coincides with the third assumption, in which Jesus took in the outcasts. It also works with the first assumption as well, and intwines all three of these assumptions.

So one could see some sort of a social reform with Jesus. He did challenge the present ideas at that time. Now, it may been that he was working primarily with a social reform within Judaism, and not really thinking about the larger population, but I think one could see a social reform here.

It was this idea that ended up getting him in trouble with the Romans. What I'm suggesting is that these ideas was what motivated him to act out in the Temple, and by doing so, made it clear that he had to be gotten rid of. I think that both the High Priest, and the Romans acted together in this (the High Priest because he knew what an action like this could lead to; the Romans coming down with full force on them).

So I see an idea of social reform being behind his actions in the Temple, which ended with him being executed.

 

[fallingblood]

Ah, I see. I misread. The narrative still makes no sense as presented, however, as a non-religious rationalization and analysis of such situations, there is a theoretical argument to be made that it resulted in some kind of overall positive benefit. I don't think anyone knows anywhere close to all the variables involved to make this determination, but it does make logical sense if the argument is accepted as presented.

Thank you for your response. It makes a lot of sense, what you're saying.

 

[outhouse]

Must of been not much of one if he took to healing people right after.

we dont know that he did.

What other source is there for a historical Jesus?

very little but its there. josephas ect

History can be pulled from scripture but it takes study.


you should wiki "historical jesus"

You also have archeological evidence from that exact area at the time of yeshua to help build a more accurate view.

Also by knowing teh history of thearea, helps to place historical yeshua and who and what he was like.

I suspect enough claimed it for him it could have been a concerned.

we dont know that either


while he was alive he was not very well known and only had a small following. very small. Thats why he was a traveling teacher. he lived in a little back water, timbuc two, sort of a place. Basically that of a small town country boy.

You may like to see a difference but if one chooses to use the Bible in the first place, I don't see much of a point.

maybe you dont want to know what the history of the time was, I do

Religion is often about money and power. Things haven't change much.

What you dont know is the history of money back then.

You were forced to go and pay tax during passover. this was a requirement. The roads were taxed, bridges, food, everything and anything they could extort was taxed.

The church was the financial institution and governement of the time.


The money changers would have charged a outragious fee just to change money into the half shekel.


By the time almost a half million people made the pilgrimage, they were bled dry.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure why this would follow. If Jesus believed that his death would be for the greater good-- which various Biblical passages do indicate that he believed that-- then how is that not a sacrifice?

How would yeshua know he was going to die? I dont think he did. I dont think he committed suicide. He knew and felt his teachings were reaching and helping the poor. he was worth more to them alive then dead.

again historical yeshua is not biblical yeshua is any sense. it gives us only a vague description at best.

No one really disagrees that causing the stink in the temple is what got yeshua killed.

Anyone, any person who caused a riot like that in the temple during its payday would have been killed, PERIOD. probably without ever meeting Caiaphas or Pilate. Religious or not. preacher or not.



there was over a 1000 jews to every roman guard policing the revenue collecting. yeshua could easily slip into the crowd to escape with his life. It took a few days to find the trouble maker, but they did find him and kill him.

 

[Caladan]

I'm going to comment here first, as I think much of this discussion comes back to this.

I'm going to start off by saying that I am making a few assumptions with my argument: 3 assumptions in fact. The first is that Jesus was, to some point, followed John the Baptist. Some would argue that Jesus was a disciple of John. I will only argue that Jesus, at the very least, subscribed to the ideology that John was preaching, which is why he would go to John to be baptized.

John the Baptist is a strong point for your case. the New Testament tells us that John was very popular with the Jewish society of his time. so Jesus could have been a continuation of a contemporary social movement, a reform within Jewish society that manifested in a variety of ways, again as you say with attending to the outcasts and embracing them, preaching forgiveness and not judging others, and a more humane approach within Judaism and Jewish society in general.
I guess this is what I was looking for in this discussion, the argument that Jesus was part of a social movement and that he died for promoting this movement and for fighting or upholding his ideals.

 

[outhouse]

the argument that Jesus was part of a social movement and that he died for promoting this movement and for fighting or upholding his ideals

then you would have to ignore a riot he starts in the temple as cause of death.

why let him even come inthe temple and preach if their going to kil him for that? if he was that well known he would have been stopped before he even made it there.


Im not sure any historian or scholar would say the riot in the temple wasnt the reason he was put to death.

 

[outhouse]

He had preached for 3 years and was not killed


he starts a riot and a few days later is dead.


do the math

 

[Nakosis]

we dont know that he did.

Well I suppose we don't know that he caused a riot in the temple either. Except for the Bible. Seems kind of arbitrary to see parts of the Bible as historical and others not.

very little but its there. josephas ect

I think there is enough reason to accept this person did exist. As to the actual story of his doings I don't know where else you are going to go.

History can be pulled from scripture but it takes study.

I disagree that any amount of study will provide an accurate picture. One is still subject to their own bias. One can make a reasonable argument from scripture doesn't make it accurate.

you should wiki "historical jesus"

You also have archeological evidence from that exact area at the time of yeshua to help build a more accurate view.

Also by knowing teh history of thearea, helps to place historical yeshua and who and what he was like.

Maybe but it could also as easily be misleading. There is only so much credibility anyone can have on the life of Jesus. Of course everyone is free to put forth their own theories.

we dont know that either

while he was alive he was not very well known and only had a small following. very small. Thats why he was a traveling teacher. he lived in a little back water, timbuc two, sort of a place. Basically that of a small town country boy.

I supposed it's a matter of which parts of the Bible you wish to see as historical and which you don't. We have different views on this.

maybe you dont want to know what the history of the time was, I do

Since you don't know what I want and don't want, what is the point of this comment?
I asked you if you had another source regarding the life of Jesus. Not would imply a desire to know don't you think?

What you dont know is the history of money back then.

You were forced to go and pay tax during passover. this was a requirement. The roads were taxed, bridges, food, everything and anything they could extort was taxed.

The church was the financial institution and governement of the time.


The money changers would have charged a outragious fee just to change money into the half shekel.


By the time almost a half million people made the pilgrimage, they were bled dry.

Ok, interesting information but it all supports my views anyway.

 

[Nakosis]

Here's the story from the BBC. Not that they have any great authority but it's interesting.

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Who killed Jesus?