The Sacrifice of Jesus from a Non-Religious Perspective.

[outhouse]

This is where I have a problem

Having this background, we can see a clear reason why the message Jesus was preaching would have promoted his death. He was preaching a message that challenged the Roman Empire . By claiming that the Kingdom of God would replace the Roman Empire, it would have been a challenge to the Roman authorities. Combined with his actions in the Temple (the overturning of the tables and driving people out, which can be seen as a symbolic destruction of the Temple, which would have been apart of the Kingdom of God teaching), his fate was sealed. Importantly though, Jesus would have been well aware of what his actions could lead to, as he would have been exposed to just that throughout his life. It was the same basic reason why John the Baptist, who Jesus was connected to, had been executed as well.

we can see a clear reason why the message Jesus was preaching would have promoted his death

How so? How would the romans even know about a ticked off jew in a ocean of half a million ticked off, over taxed jews??? tension was high at this time because the jews despised romans and their taxes.

He was preaching a message that challenged the Roman Empire.

that didnt challenge anyone! disrupting money, swords and knives and civil disobediance challenged Romans. They were there to police the event.


preachers No way, they were on ever corner, romans could care less.

By claiming that the Kingdom of God would replace the Roman Empire

A little know teacher with no real following would be looked at as a crazy person and ignored as long as he kept his distance.

and second we dont know the yeshua was preaching god would replace anyone. Your guessing here.

Combined with his actions in the Temple (the overturning of the tables and driving people out, which can be seen as a symbolic destruction of the Temple, which would have been apart of the Kingdom of God teaching), his fate was sealed.

not combined. That alone would have sealed his fate and you cannot argue it wouldnt.

It was the same basic reason why John the Baptist, who Jesus was connected to, had been executed as well.

another falsehood your making

now you alone claim to know exactly why John the baptist was killed. This is not known and there are a few camps none of which are known with certainty.

you rely way to much on another guess.


and second, the reasons are completely different and for different reasons BY different people.

makes your statement inaccurate

 

[filthy tugboat]

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.

I agree, from a non-religious perspective Jesus certainly made a sacrifice, from a religious one where Jesus is considered God, I don't think it is a sacrifice.

And as per the above definition, gaining something more desirable is part of the sacrificial experience.

Did Jesus consider his human life, the one that would surely be lost at the crucifixion, to be something of value?

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.

Not necessarily, the big thing is whether something of value was given up or taken away. That is what makes it a sacrifice.

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.

It doesn't matter what we think about human life, the sacrifice pertain's to what the individual considers of value.

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.

Yep!

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.

I don't argue with most of this, what I find with the Jesus section of this however is that from a religious (trinitarian) perspective, no sacrifice was made and Jesus' death was largely unnecessary.

 

[fallingblood]

I think we have two cases or arguments evolving in this thread. one is the idea that Jesus could have been a leader of a social movement. for the case of the argument I will use the gospels narrative, things like the fact that John the Baptist was very popula with the people, that the gospels tell us that Jesus had many followers from among the people, etc.
another argument is that Jesus was simply executed for disturbing the Pax Romana.
but we can complicated it more, or combine the arguments. for example, Jesus could have been some form of a reformer, or standing at the head of a social movement, who was eventually executed when the Roman authority felt it had to step in in order to uphold the public order. of course the temple scence could be instrumental here, there were strict regulations about the temple in Jerusalem that the Roman authority enforced, violating the peace in the compound would be a serious violation of the public order.

I personally would combine both arguments. I think it was his teachings, and the social movement he was creating that led him to do what he did in the Temple.

But then again, I have an increasingly difficult time seeing his actions in the Temple as historical. The whole Passover plot with Jesus is difficult to see, for me, because many of the details seem to be suggesting that this happened at another time of the year. Also, Jesus was just left alone after his fit in the Temple. No one seemingly tried to stop him. He was able to just walk right out, and according to the Gospel tradition, allowed to continue preaching the same message. More so, he even supposedly has his disciples participate in buying a lamb there. So there are some discrepancies that don't seem to add up.

 

[fallingblood]

This is where I have a problem

How so? How would the romans even know about a ticked off jew in a ocean of half a million ticked off, over taxed jews??? tension was high at this time because the jews despised romans and their taxes.

that didnt challenge anyone! disrupting money, swords and knives and civil disobediance challenged Romans. They were there to police the event.

preachers No way, they were on ever corner, romans could care less.

The Romans did care though. We see a number of preachers being executed by Rome, sometimes for nothing more than what they said, as it was seen as a challenge that could lead to something more.

Religion and politics were very much entwined. When Jesus talks about a Kingdom of God, he is also saying that the Kingdom of Rome would be destroyed, lost, or what have you. The key was that he was talking about Rome being no more; replaced. That is a very political and religious message.

We can look at John the Baptist, and see that in regards to his teachings, which would have been somewhat similar, he was killed for just that. In his case, as with most other, religion and politics were mixed. And because of that, he was deemed a necessity to be executed. Josephus makes this a lot more clear than does the Gospels. However, one can use the Gospels in addition to see the picture more fully.

And John and Jesus were just a few of these preachers who ended up getting the attention of Rome and the authorities in one way or another, and then being killed for that. Josephus speaks of a number of these individuals.

A little know teacher with no real following would be looked at as a crazy person and ignored as long as he kept his distance.

and second we dont know the yeshua was preaching god would replace anyone. Your guessing here.

It's a guess based on the available information that we have. We see him speaking of the Kingdom of God. We see John having spoken about the same issue, thus we can be fairly certain that this was part of the message. Looking at the Kingdom of God in a historical setting, we would know that in order for the Kingdom of God to take place, the kingdom of Earth would have to cease. Meaning, Rome would have to cease, and essentially be replaced.

And one can not rule out a "crazy person" as Rome was known to check out such individuals as well. If they were deemed crazy, and not a threat, they would be let go (after a beating of course). So it would not have been unlikely that they would have checked out Jesus, especially since he was preaching what he was.

not combined. That alone would have sealed his fate and you cannot argue it wouldnt.

Why did he do what he did in the Temple? By all accounts, that wasn't the first time he went to the Temple. From what we get from the Gospels (I'm ignoring John for the time being as according to that one, it wasn't really that scene that put him into trouble. In fact, in John, Jesus does that at the beginning of his mission, and then is able to go back to Jerusalem later), he probably scoped out the Temple, and then came back at a later time.

So there was a purpose in what he did, and we can see it relating back to his message. Especially if we look at what he said, and look at where he supposedly takes that material from (Jeremiah for example).

So they go hand in hand. One can't disconnect the actions of Jesus here from his teachings.

another falsehood your making

now you alone claim to know exactly why John the baptist was killed. This is not known and there are a few camps none of which are known with certainty.

you rely way to much on another guess.


and second, the reasons are completely different and for different reasons BY different people.

makes your statement inaccurate

I don't claim to know exactly why. But I do claim to know the basics. We can look at Josephus, compare it to the Gospels, and get a pretty good picture. Yes, there is a leeway here, but when comparing the two, we can see that the reason he was executed was based, at least in part, on the message he was preaching. Not really a guess as it is looking at the sources concerning his death and dealing with them.

Also, how can you say with certainty that the reasons are completely different when you first rebuke me about guessing? I think that makes your argument inaccurate.

Really, I don't like being dismissed. If you see a problem in my argument, point it out and explain it. Don't just say that I'm wrong, and then make an argument that is not supported by anything.

 

[Nakosis]

The Romans did care though. We see a number of preachers being executed by Rome, sometimes for nothing more than what they said, as it was seen as a challenge that could lead to something more.

Religion and politics were very much entwined. When Jesus talks about a Kingdom of God, he is also saying that the Kingdom of Rome would be destroyed, lost, or what have you. The key was that he was talking about Rome being no more; replaced. That is a very political and religious message.

What real harm/threat was Jesus to the Romans?
I suspect Pilate was smart enough to see he was not a threat.
Yes, Jesus caused a ruckus in the temple. Nothing was stolen, nothing lost. Jesus was not the Messiah of the OT. There was no need for Rome to kill him. I think Pilate saw that. That's why he provided a chance for the people of Judea to set him free.

However who was at his trial. The people who were making money from religion. The people Jesus said had no authority to charge for access to God. They did not want Jesus to go free. Jesus was a threat to their livelihood.

Pilate's interest was is keeping the peace. The death of Jesus was a means to appease the wealthy Judeans.

 

[Falvlun]

we dont know that he had any fear for his safety, he was going to a required event to pay taxes

Well, then, you also don't know that he didn't (fear for his safety).

I ride/race motorcycles, its not safe and I endanger my life but I love what I do. If A bad off happened and I didnt make it. Did I sacrifice my life.

we really need in this case need to define how he really sacrificed his life because sacrifice can be very subjective.

This gets back to the OP. We do tend to have pretty good ideas of what a sacrifice entails, and it has nothing to do with simply indulging in dangerous hobbies. Are you suggesting that MLK Jr didn't make a sacrifice by continuing to preach a dangerous message?

again biblical events are not a given as having any historicity at all.

According to the bible yeshua did sacrifice his life. But that isnt the debate here. we are dealing with historical yeshua.

Oops! My bad. Although, I suppose the flip side of this is that you can't argue that he didn't know he was going to die either. Historically speaking, we don't know either way.

 

[outhouse]

Well, then, you also don't know that he didn't (fear for his safety).

Again, before the temple incidence, he was unknown to the Romans.

He traveled to a new place he hadnt preached before.

he was going to pay his required taxes.

We do tend to have pretty good ideas of what a sacrifice entails

Thats what i want to know, lets define how he sacrificed his life.

because if he kicked over money tables and caused a small riot out of anger, that wasnt a sacrifice.

It was loosing his temper and doing the same thing every prisoner in every prison has done.
"made a bad choice at the wrong time"


There are two things Caiaphas and Pilate wanted more then anything else, and that was for the holiday to go smooth, quiet and peaceful. even a small riot would have been a death sentance, and it was.

Are you suggesting that MLK Jr didn't make a sacrifice by continuing to preach a dangerous message?

# One, were are not sure exactly what he preached when he did. It is speculative and as close as I see is simular to Thomas.

# Two we are talking about someone at the forefront of a movement as in MLK. You cannot compare the two.

Yeshua was unknown to the Romans, and not at the forefront of a well known large movement. he was in fact a small backwoods traveling teacher with a very small following during his time. Where yeshua lived was outside of direct Roman rule.

I suppose the flip side of this is that you can't argue that he didn't know he was going to die either

I was listening to Proffessors talk last night about this exact subject, [the whole thread]

Going into the city he would have had nothing to fear, he was a unknown. Preachers were everywhere and very common, teaching many many different topics and subjects. had yeshua been the only one yes by all means, you would have a good point. But there were countless preachers in a sea of people 300,000 to 400,000 people strong! with at the highest guess a 500 to 1 ration of guard to jew. yeshua was in fact invisible as long as he was not violent and remained calm. But he didnt.


many of these proffessors are still very unsure about if it was religion or politics that angered Yeshua.

Anger killed yeshua, anger did not kill MLK

 

[4consideration]

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.

I would like to respect your desire to keep the religious interpretations of Jesus out of the discussion, and as I understand it, focus mainly on the historical accounts of his life -- especially as it may relate to social change. If I stray too far from that for your liking, please let me know. I do wish to be respectful.

I can see the similiarities that you are pointing out between MLK, Jr. and Jesus. I do think that both of their messages did, indeed, include "acceptance (or equality)."

However, I think that it is important to make a distinction between what was included in what Jesus taught, and what his larger message was. If you are going to use this comparision for practical application to life, I think it becomes relevant. That is where I think I may be crossing the line into religon, but then since what I am referring to is part of your premise -- so I think it is ok.

I think that the offering made by Jesus was an understanding of the supremacy of Love. He taught Love in all it's applications as the starting point (place where you come from) and the solution -- even when Love looked like turning over the tables. Love (access to God) was being disrespected (charged for.) Sometimes Love says, "Hell No!" (OK those are my words.)

I think it is relevant to point that out here, because I do not see that there is a real basis for viewing the historical or religious view of Jesus as though he intended a social movement, but more of any understanding of Love that begins first with the individual. (The internal aspect is very important, otherwise it looks like Love should be imposed externally, rather than revealed or honored internally, first.)

But, I do recognize that when people a greater level of understanding of the application of Love in our lives, it will have a ripple effect out into the world, and will necessarily result in us treating everyone better. That would most likely result in social change.

Love as the solution was the offering. The application of that understanding brings about acceptance and equality.

 

[outhouse]

The Romans did care though. We see a number of preachers being executed by Rome, sometimes for nothing more than what they said, as it was seen as a challenge that could lead to something more.

True and it depends on the context.

But how many preachers were there at passover with up to 400,000 people.

Religion and politics were very much entwined.

Oh very much so, I agree.

the temple was even the bank of the times.

When Jesus talks about a Kingdom of God, he is also saying that the Kingdom of Rome would be destroyed, lost, or what have you

heres where we have a problem. You know as well as I do there are two camps on what scholars think about what exactly jesus message might have been.

One style of message regarding the kingdom would have been no threat at all.

The key was that he was talking about Rome being no more; replaced. That is a very political and religious message.

We just dont know if that was what he was saying is the problem. we just dont know.

Lets say he was doing this. He very well could have caught roman attention in a normal setting in everyday life. Blended in with 400,000 Jews, he would have been invisible.

We can look at John the Baptist, and see that in regards to his teachings, which would have been somewhat similar, he was killed for just that.

two things

#1 jesus teachings style was nothing like johns. delivery and message. I agree jesus took off where John left off.

#2 you also know there are two camps in why John was killed. Your pointing out only one view and taking it as fact.

Did jesus mouth off to the king himself because the king married his sister? No


very little is known here in detail. Its the same with jesus

And John and Jesus were just a few of these preachers who ended up getting the attention of Rome and the authorities in one way or another, and then being killed for that. Josephus speaks of a number of these individuals.

True

BUT jesus has his own case, we cant just lump him into a class like that unless we know for sure and we dont.

Why did he do what he did in the Temple?

scholars and historians are divided on this.

Imagine this. Jesus walks in and see's this is just like a modern day concert, except this one requires you pay your annual tax to the temple in bed with romans. the temple would have been a amazing thing to see only to find out it was a financial institution as well as the government hub with buisinesses everywhere. You would have to pay for your bath before entering, you would have to pay for animals to sacrifice. Like all modern events everywhere you turn you were being bilked.

Some say it was the taxes that ticked him off, or how the high priest were hand in hand with the Romans. Money was a issue though, or jesus wouldnt make a remark that they are all thieves.

So now you have to ask yourself, how much was money a factor and religion. fact is we dont know.

By all accounts, that wasn't the first time he went to the Temple.

By all accounts we dont know and most historians and scholars say we know he only went to the temple once for sure.

Im kind of with you though, why would he have not been there before?

So there was a purpose in what he did, and we can see it relating back to his message.

depends on which scholarship you follow. its not known for sure.

So they go hand in hand. One can't disconnect the actions of Jesus here from his teachings.

No you cant, I agree.

But you have to know exactly what he taught about the kingdom before you can make any assumptions.

Also, how can you say with certainty that the reasons are completely different when you first rebuke me about guessing? I think that makes your argument inaccurate.

im pointing out that there is a gray area in our kowledge in the subject to make certain claims with any certainty.




I think its important to define exactly how his religious teachings turned into a sacrifice. Im not apposed to agree if I can see the connection. I just dont see jesus playing with his life up until the point of him loosing his temper.

I think we can both agree the riot in the temple is what got him killed. I also understand even this is up for debate and some scholars think it wasnt that big of a deal but did get him noticed. then we could have his message being used as a good excuse to kill him.

What I see is a man loosing his temper in the temple during a very sensitive time and being killed for it.



I wish we had more knowledge on the subject so we wouldnt have to guess about it.

 

[fallingblood]

What real harm/threat was Jesus to the Romans?
I suspect Pilate was smart enough to see he was not a threat.
Yes, Jesus caused a ruckus in the temple. Nothing was stolen, nothing lost. Jesus was not the Messiah of the OT. There was no need for Rome to kill him. I think Pilate saw that. That's why he provided a chance for the people of Judea to set him free.

Historically speaking, it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have given the people of Judea a chance to let Jesus go free. As far as we know, there was no such tradition that allowed for that. In fact, Roman policy suggests that something like that simply would not happen.

Was Jesus a threat though? Yes he was. He was preaching a message of freedom from oppression, during a time that they were celebrating a time that they had just that, in a city where tensions were high, and riots were known to go off for small things. He was a potential danger, and one that the authority (the High Priest, as well as Pilate) would have wanted dealt with.

However who was at his trial. The people who were making money from religion. The people Jesus said had no authority to charge for access to God. They did not want Jesus to go free. Jesus was a threat to their livelihood.

Pilate's interest was is keeping the peace. The death of Jesus was a means to appease the wealthy Judeans.

We don't know who was at his trial. It may be that he never had a trial. Either way, Jesus was seen as an insurrectionist. He was causing problems, and was dealt with accordingly. It is not the first time we see something like that happen.

 

[arthra]

It might be interesting to compare the verses about the Temple incident:

Then they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"

~ Mark 11:15-17

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.

- Matthew 21:12-13


And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold saying unto them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of robbers.

~ Luke 19:45-46


John has Jesus using a "scourge of cords":

And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.

~ John 2:15 -16

The references above appear to be in Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11.

Since all the Gospels report this incident it's pretty likely to have occurred ...

I would say this confrontation in the Temple is like the apex of the ministry of Jesus.. before He was dealing with scribes and Pharisees in incidental confrontations but here it is a crescendo of His Message in the Temple itself...The dramatic counter balance of His cleansing the Temple is the crucifixion where the powers of the establishment have their day. You have to admit this is drama at it's best.. What happens at the crucifixion is the earthquake and darkness in the sky and the rending of the Temple veil...so that's some powerful imagery indeed.

 

[fallingblood]

True and it depends on the context....

What does that really matter though? Jesus was not the first preacher who was killed during Passover. He was not the first to be arrested during a festival such as Passover. It's not like it would have been a unique thing for Jesus to be arrested, and executed.

So in context, what I said still stands, as we see this happening to others in the same situation.

heres where we have a problem....

There are far more than two camps on the subject. There are many different perspectives. Most though agree that he taught something about the Kingdom of God.

If we look at the use of the idea of the Kingdom of God, it was clear that it would have replaced the Kingdom of Earth. This may not be in a militaristic way, but there was still replacement.

And really, it would have looked as a threat to Rome. For Romans, if one spoke of a new Kingdom being sat up in that area, that meant Rome had to go. It was threatening either way.

We just dont know if that was what he was saying is the problem....

History always means not knowing. What we have are levels of probability. My argument is a highly probable based on the information that we have. Can I prove it? No, however, history is not science. Again, it rests on levels of probability.

I see no reason to doubt my argument, unless one can show why it doesn't work. Saying he would be invisible, just because there was a large crowd, isn't evidence. It ignores what Jesus did. He was a public speaker. He was a preacher. He knew how to reach large crowds. And that would not be something hard to miss. Especially if it was around the Temple, and ended with a demonstration.

And it wouldn't be like Jesus was a special case here. He wasn't the first, nor last to be caught in a similar situation.

two things
#1 jesus teachings style was nothing like johns. delivery and message. I agree jesus took off where John left off.

I didn't mention teaching style. I was referring to message. And yes, the message was similar.

#2 you also know there are two camps in why John was killed. Your pointing out only one view and taking it as fact.

Again, more than two camps. And yes, I am only pointing to one view, and taking it as if it is the most probable. Because I think it is the most probable, and have said why. Just because there are more than one view, doesn't mean that is an argument against my view. There are more than one view on how Earth was created, or how humans formed. That doesn't mean we can disregard both just because there is more than one idea.

Did jesus mouth off to the king himself because the king married his sister...

From the little that we can see, we can see a similarity. The message, at a point, was similar. Both taught about the Kingdom of God, and the teachings centered around that idea. They were preparing people to enter into the Kingdom of God.

As for Herod marrying his step-brother's wife (the problem was that her husband, which was Herod of Antipas's step-brother, was still alive). If we look at what Josephus says, it was this marriage that led to a war with King Aretas, which was the neighboring Arab King. So there is much more to the story than just mouthing off. And we do see a possible (probable), political motivation for the death of John.

True
BUT jesus has his own case, we cant just lump him into a class like that unless we know for sure and we dont.

Yes, Jesus has his own case. However, from what we know, and can see, it fits into a broader context. It makes perfect sense to compare these two individuals, as what we have shows that it was similar circumstances.

scholars and historians are divided on this...

Or Jesus was citing a passage in Jeremiah. Jeremiah was talking about how God wouldn't protect the Temple any longer. That God's protection would vanish. And the reason was because evildoers were inhabiting the place. The Temple had changed from it's original meaning. More so, Jesus starts off by taking from Isaiah. Which states that God's favor would be for all and that all would be able to participate in the Temple practice. As in, foreigners and others would be able to offer sacrifice as well.

The Temple tax was a necessary thing. It was supported from Biblical scripture, and went to keeping up the Temple. It wasn't higher than it should be, as it was what it was told to be in scripture. More so, we see shortly after Jesus sending his own men to go and participate in the Passover preparation. As in, he sent his men to go to the Temple, and pay for a sacrifice. Why would he do this if he had such a problem with the Temple's selling and money changers? So it wasn't strictly about money as you are saying.

Also, this wasn't the first time that Jesus would have seen the Temple. We are told that he had gone there shortly before. And it is possible he had visited at other times in his life, as it was a requirement (one that not everyone followed, but it is probable that Jesus had been there at least once before, and at the very least, knew what was going on). So it wasn't like he would have been surprised by what he saw. As he had seen it at least once before, and it was only shortly before. So there is little reason to assume that he just went into a fit of rage, as it wasn't like he hadn't seen it before.

So now you have to ask yourself, how much was money a factor and religion. fact is we dont know.

We can be fairly certain. If we look at what Jesus supposedly said, and the original context (as in where he got the words from), it was not necessarily about money. More so, he didn't react angrily the first time he saw what was happening in the Temple. So again, we can't say that he was reacting out of anger in this case. Yet, when we look at what he did, what he supposedly said, and what he preached, it syncs up.

By all accounts we dont know and most historians and scholars say we know he only went to the temple once for sure...

Actually, by all accounts, we are told that he had been to the Temple before, in that visit to Jerusalem. When he "destroyed" the Temple (a symbolic destruction as we can gather from what he taught), that was at least the second time he was at the Temple during that visit to Jerusalem. We are told that he had also went there shortly before his demonstration in the Temple.

depends on which scholarship you follow. its not known for sure.

That's not an argument. If we stuck to that reasoning, we would have to ignore much of history, as scholars many times disagree on ideas. That doesn't mean we can just disregard that information.

But you have to know exactly what he taught about the kingdom before you can make any assumptions.

No you don't. One doesn't have to know the exact details, we generally are not privy to such information. Knowing the basics, or general idea is well enough. Especially in this case, when we can see them going hand in hand.

im pointing out that there is a gray area in our kowledge in the subject to make certain claims with any certainty.

There is a grey area in most of our knowledge. That doesn't mean we can't know anything with some degree of certainty. That simply is a non-argument.

I think its important to define exactly how his religious teachings turned into a sacrifice. Im not apposed to agree if I can see the connection. I just dont see jesus playing with his life up until the point of him loosing his temper.

I see no real reason to think he lost his temper. Again, from all accounts, we are told that Jesus had just visited the Temple before that ordeal. Thus, he knew what was going on, and left without any problems. It was only later on that he went and "destroyed" the Temple. And looking at his teachings, which talked about a destruction of the Temple, that makes perfect sense that he was simply doing a symbolic demonstration and not reacting in anger.

I think we can both agree the riot in the temple is what got him killed. I also understand even this is up for debate and some scholars think it wasnt that big of a deal but did get him noticed. then we could have his message being used as a good excuse to kill him.

What riot? There is no record of a riot. If there was, there is no way Jesus would have been able to just walk out, and continue preaching. There was a small demonstration. If we look at how the Temple was situated, it would have been hard, or nearly impossible, for one man to do anything more than a small demonstration.

And if they couldn't catch Jesus then, there is no reason to assume that they remembered how he looked. Clearly, there was something more to it.

 

[outhouse]

If we look at the use of the idea of the Kingdom of God, it was clear that it would have replaced the Kingdom of Earth. This may not be in a militaristic way, but there was still replacement.

And really, it would have looked as a threat to Rome. For Romans, if one spoke of a new Kingdom being sat up in that area, that meant Rome had to go. It was threatening either way.

Quote:

I just read all of thomas, not one word reflects a threat to Roman authority n any way shape or form.
he way jesus talked in parables, its doubtful he caught anyones attention. It camouflaged his message.

History always means not knowing. What we have are levels of probability. My argument is a highly probable based on the information that we have. Can I prove it? No, however, history is not science. Again, it rests on levels of probability.

I see no reason to doubt my argument, unless one can show why it doesn't work. Saying he would be invisible, just because there was a large crowd, isn't evidence. It ignores what Jesus did. He was a public speaker. He was a preacher. He knew how to reach large crowds. And that would not be something hard to miss. Especially if it was around the Temple, and ended with a demonstration.

And it wouldn't be like Jesus was a special case here. He wasn't the first, nor last to be caught in a similar situation.

this doesnt change the fact that we dont know how he preached the kingdom of god. One way was no threat at all to anyone.
There were hundreds of preachers at the same event, and had jesus not let his anger get the best of him, he would not have been killed.
again it wasnt his message, it was his anger.

We can be fairly certain. If we look at what Jesus supposedly said, and the original context (as in where he got the words from), it was not necessarily about money. More so, he didn't react angrily the first time he saw what was happening in the Temple. So again, we can't say that he was reacting out of anger in this case. Yet, when we look at what he did, what he supposedly said, and what he preached, it syncs up.

You cannot say that, even scripture states he was the most violent he has ever been.
It amounts to a small riot driven by anger. No one calmly walks up and starts turning tables updside down, that is rage! You dont make a whip and start driving animals out due to calmness.

Now I doubt he did half of what was written. We really dont know.

And with a word like thieves, theres a high probability he was very angry.

No you don't. One doesn't have to know the exact details, we generally are not privy to such information. Knowing the basics, or general idea is well enough. Especially in this case, when we can see them going hand in hand.

False

there are two main camps
If he didnt preach the kingdom was going to over throw Roman authority or in a way that was harmless. its not his preaching.

. And looking at his teachings, which talked about a destruction of the Temple, that makes perfect sense that he was simply doing a symbolic demonstration and not reacting in anger.

at who's teaching?? sources please.

What riot? There is no record of a riot. If there was, there is no way Jesus would have been able to just walk out, and continue preaching.

A act of violence and anger, throwing tables around and making a whip driving the thieves out would amount tyo a small riot
with 400,000 people he could easily blend in the crowd and escape

remember possibly 1 roman guard for every 500-1000 jews. you can throw some temple guards in there was well, but the massive amount of people still overwhelmed the powers that be, when looking for a needle in a haystack.

If we look at how the Temple was situated, it would have been hard, or nearly impossible, for one man to do anything more than a small demonstration.

obviously it was enough to get him killed.

And if they couldn't catch Jesus then, there is no reason to assume that they remembered how he looked. Clearly, there was something more to it.

There was something more im sure. It took a few days for the temple guards to catch up with him.


No one doubts what happened in the temple is what got jesus killed by romans.


Anyway im just parroting what proffessors and scholars and historians were stating, this view isnt mine. But I do buy it.

If you want ill get their names, im tempted to use my go-pro and record the part on taxes for you and post it to youtube

 

[fallingblood]

If you want ill get their names, im tempted to use my go-pro and record the part on taxes for you and post it to youtube

Really no need. Until you can address what I said, instead of only taking bits and pieces of it, out of context (as in, you strip them from the entire argument), I will not be responding again. I know how this will progress, as usual, with dismissals, ignoring key points, and an appeal to authority (a select authority while ignoring other authorities on the subject). I don't feel like going down that road again, and thus will be quitting conversation with you until you can actually address the points I list in a logical manner.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Blood: I read the article straight from your website. While I've never agreed with your position on just about anything related to Jesus as I believe your teachings are atheistic/agnostic in nature, I think in the past you've at least communicated your message clearly. I think your thesis is less clear in this one. You're communicating that Jesus made a sacrifice of some kind but you're not very clear about how his death was actually linked to his preaching of the "golden rule". According to you, his death was a result of preaching against the Roman empire. You don't make the connection between the "Kingdom of God" and the "golden rule" despite the fact that you claim the link exists. You sound like a man that's not exactly sure how Jesus actually made a sacrifice. I'm also curious how you reconcile ths statement.....:

"Looking at the sources we have on Jesus, this teaching seemed to remain within his teachings as well. More so, we see this teaching being carried on by Paul, so we can be reasonably sure that Jesus also continued on with this sort of teaching. "

....with these statements: "We may never be able to completely know exactly what Jesus taught, as he never left us with any sermons. "

"The first important clue is an event we can be positive occurred. That is the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. This is an event scholars agree is historical for a variety of reasons, including that it is an embarrassing story."

"In the Gospels, there are a number of instances in which Jesus is criticized for keeping the company of tax collectors, or other individuals seen to be lower or outcasts."


The only source you could've used to make the last three statements (the Gospels) contains the Sermon on the Mount which is the most famous sermon ever preached on this Earth along with more teachings by Jesus than I have time to count.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Jesus Christ was not sacrificed, He was betrayed and killed and elevated to status of theos, the four gospel never state that his death was a Sacrifice.

 

[outhouse]

Really no need. Until you can address what I said, instead of only taking bits and pieces of it, out of context (as in, you strip them from the entire argument), I will not be responding again. I know how this will progress, as usual, with dismissals, ignoring key points, and an appeal to authority (a select authority while ignoring other authorities on the subject). I don't feel like going down that road again, and thus will be quitting conversation with you until you can actually address the points I list in a logical manner.

Well I believe Bart had a say so in what Im using as a source in some places. I find it strange you want to discount proffessionals on this.


And alot of what you posted is just repeating the same thing glossing over things that have more then one valid side. Or have no historicity one way or another.


I think if we want to cary this out in a rational manner we need to get a few things understood as I stated earlier.

#1 define exactly how he could have made a sacrifice with what is historically known.

#2 Do you agree that the incident in the temple is what cause his death?


because without these two we could argue all week and both be right.


despite probability in certain areas, there are others we just dont know.

 

[outhouse]

Blood: While I've never agreed with your position on just about anything related to Jesus as I believe you're a false teacher

Ive learned alot from this man, while I debate fiercely with him, im learning along the way.


he has taken more patients with me and everyone then anyone else ive seen here, some of which are just down right mean. FB doesnt have to get into as much detail as he does.


Ill have to say he is a good teacher.

his death was a result of preaching against the Roman empire

that is not certain

You don't draw the connection between the "Kingdom of God" and the "golden rule".

In the scholarships regarding historical jesus, there are two main camps on how he might have preached the kingdom of god. So we dont know one way or the other on what his teaching actually is.



with all that said this is a debate about historical jesus, NOT biblical jesus.

rest of you post I agree with to a point

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well I believe Bart had a say so in what Im using as a source in some places. I find it strange you want to discount proffessionals on this.

Bart who? Ehrman? There's no way he would agree with this:

No one doubts what happened in the temple is what got jesus killed by romans.

And as for "discounting professionals" how many have you actually read?

#1 define exactly how he could have made a sacrifice with what is historically known.

We know he was a teacher/preacher in first century palestine during a time of Roman rule when Rome was particularly sensitive to the possibility of revolt, we know that he had a number of followers, and we know he was executed by (officially) the Romans. We also know that the Jews in and around Jesus' day were also killed for what they taught or the possibility that they might influence enough people to become a threat. We know that Jesus put himself in harm's way both with his teachings and with his refusal to hide and/or stop preaching.

despite probability in certain areas, there are others we just dont know.

That describes all of history and the behavior of particles. So what?

 

[outhouse]

Bart who? Ehrman? There's no way he would agree with this:

I understand barts view on this, my main disagreement with just one part in which he thinks the table turning was not that big of a deal. The rest i agree on.

That describes all of history and the behavior of particles. So what?

some people including me like to add to this blank area with our own preconcieved ideas

We know he was a teacher/preacher in first century palestine during a time of Roman rule when Rome was particularly sensitive to the possibility of revolt, we know that he had a number of followers, and we know he was executed by (officially) the Romans. We also know that the Jews in and around Jesus' day were also killed for what they taught or the possibility that they might influence enough people to become a threat. We know that Jesus put himself in harm's way both with his teachings and with his refusal to hide and/or stop preaching.

I agree with this, its a fair assessment.



But do you agree that the incident temple was what got him killed ???