The Sacrifice of Jesus from a Non-Religious Perspective.

[outhouse]

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.

we know he probably died on a cross.


Its not my fault history does not back the biblical yeshua. Im just statingwhat is known about historical yeshua. biblical yeshus is not relevant here.

I think there is enough reason to accept this person did exist.

I agree and have never stated differently

in fact by the claims im making its obvious I believe in historical yeshua

I disagree that any amount of study will provide an accurate picture

to bad you discount knowledge

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.

is there a gray area? oh yes there is. But we do know a certain amount with certainty.

other areas are gray

and there are views right and left.

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.

unless your following scholarships your completely blind to the real yeshua

 

[outhouse]

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

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Who killed Jesus?

the article gives my view credibility

its mainly following biblical yeshua though.

 

[Nakosis]

the article gives my view credibility

its mainly following biblical yeshua though.

Mine too. I just think the distinction between a historical and biblical Jesus is false. Except that some feel it gives more support to their personal views.

 

[outhouse]

Mine too. I just think the distinction between a historical and biblical Jesus is false. Except that some feel it gives more support to their personal views.

if you must know, historians will flat state the biblical versions are only a glimpse of the real yeshua. its not opinion that scripture does not give a accurate description of history in this case.

Religious Dogma was added and this is a fact no scholar or historian will argue.

yeshuas story grew after his death and written by not one eye witness to his life

 

[Ketzer]

we dont know that he did.

Thats right. There is much evidence that the Turin Shroud was the shroud of the historical Jesus and there are several forensic experts stating that the man under this Shroud was still alive.

 

[Nakosis]

if you must know, historians will flat state the biblical versions are only a glimpse of the real yeshua. its not opinion that scripture does not give a accurate description of history in this case.

Religious Dogma was added and this is a fact no scholar or historian will argue.

yeshuas story grew after his death and written by not one eye witness to his life

Alrighty, thanks for your input.

 

[outhouse]

Thats right. There is much evidence that the Turin Shroud was the shroud of the historical Jesus and there are several forensic experts stating that the man under this Shroud was still alive.

There is no such evidence and you purposely ignore the radio carbon dating done 3 times that shows it never existed at the time of Yeshua.

Not only that it was commonv only to tie with using strips, the feet, legs, wrist to body, jaw closed to head, in the first century.


The historicity of yeshua deiing on the cross is very strong.

the shroud has no valid historicity to yeshua

 

[Caladan]

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

Actually I would use this in an argument that he WAS passionate and fought for his ideals. the scene at the temple is one of my favorite parts of the NT. it certainly mean that Jesus had plenty of things to say about contemporary culture around him.

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.

How do you know that Jesus would not have access to the temple? it in fact could have been one of the catalysts for his trial, mainly for disturbing public order which the Roman authority is expected to hold.

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

Some do bring it up in the context of the Roman desire to show that they maintain public order in such a sensitive place.

 

[Ketzer]

There is no such evidence and you purposely ignore the radio carbon dating done 3 times that shows it never existed at the time of Yeshua.

Hmm - and if the samples have been fraudulently exchanged?
What was received by the 3 institues does not match to what was cut out, at least as the one told, who cut it out (Riggi).
The main actor (Michael Tite) and co. received the proud sum of 1 mio pound for the result "Medivial" , this is proven fact. The sum was used to establish a new university chair, whoes professor became - just guess?

---

---

Michael Tite. He is now Prof. emeritus.

The cutting out of the samples has been done in public in front of a video camera. Afterwards Tite and the Cardinal of Turin, the principal, went in the next room and wrapped the samples up in secret. Very convincing the outcome, isn't it?

 

[outhouse]

Actually I would use this in an argument that he WAS passionate and fought for his ideals. the scene at the temple is one of my favorite parts of the NT. it certainly mean that Jesus had plenty of things to say about contemporary culture around him.

I agree whole hearted.

How do you know?

we dont.

it in fact have been one of the catalysts for his trial

first we would have to define how much of the trial is historical.

how much historicity does it have? very little as written. There may have not been a trial.

mainly for disturbing public order which the Roman authority is expected to hold

a roman authority would not have to be Pilate, what better way to play to a roman audience then to state their leader is not guilty of mudering the religious messiah in which beliefe we growing fast.

a authority would have to be defined in this case as well.

Some do bring it up in the context of the Roman desire to show that they maintain public order in such a sensitive place.

they were policing the event as they had alot of money at stake.

 

[outhouse]

Hmm - and if the samples have been fraudulently exchanged?
What was received by the 3 institues does not match to what was cut out, at least as the one told, who cut it out (Riggi).
The main actor (Michael Tite) and co. received the proud sum of 1 mio pound for the result "Medivial" , this is proven fact. The sum was used to establish a new university chair, whoes professor became - just guess?

---

---

Michael Tite. He is now Prof. emeritus.

The cutting out of the samples has been done in public in front of a video camera. Afterwards Tite and the Cardinal of Turin, the principal, went in the next room and wrapped the samples up in secret. Very convincing the outcome, isn't it?

please derail another thread or start you own for more details. its been hashed out here for a long time.

If you payed attention to the OP , he did state

non - religious perspective

the shroud has been deemed a fake and has no historicty. we are dealing with historicity.

thank you

 

[Caladan]

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.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Why would suicide be necessary in order for it to have been a sacrifice? If you believe your message is more important than your own personal safety, and yet still continue giving your message and lose your life as the result, then I would consider that a sacrifice.

In addition, a sacrifice isn't limited to loss of life. It could also refer to loss of comfort, happiness, pleasure, painlessness, etc, all of which Jesus had to sacrifice for the sake of his mission.

As for Jesus not knowing, funny you should say that, cuz I just came across this verse for another thread:
Mark 10:32 "32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (and the heading that this verse is under at biblegateway.com is "Jesus predicts his death a third time.") So, the Biblical Jesus, at least, knew what was coming.

 

[Ketzer]

please derail another thread or start you own for more details. its been hashed out here for a long time.

If you payed attention to the OP , he did state

non - religious perspective

the shroud has been deemed a fake and has no historicty. we are dealing with historicity.

thank you

ok, I will make a new threat - but I consider the TS a historical, scientificly researchable object. I think that you are not up to date, if you deem the TS a fake, believing that it has no historicty. Since the 1988 dating "event" much as been researched and came out.
That the TS is a fake might hace been a little premature.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Thats plenty fair enough for a assessment

Jesus could have been a leader of a social movement.

Im sure he was but as a traveling teacher it was no where near he size of biblical porportions

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

had there been no temple incidence, I would agree whole hearted his teachings could be the sole cause.

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

the reason I lean this way is just for the fact there were almost half a million people there. Yeshua and his teachings would have been invisible.



Caiaphas and Pilate would have never had time or taken it to squash a trouble maker. We have such a small glimpse of what happened to know with any certianty though.

 

[outhouse]

ok, I will make a new threat - but I consider the TS a historical, scientificly researchable object. I think that you are not up to date, if you deem the TS a fake, believing that it has no historicty. Since the 1988 dating "event" much as been researched and came out.
That the TS is a fake might hace been a little premature.

I will participate in your new thread

 

[outhouse]

If you believe your message is more important than your own personal safety

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

and yet still continue giving your message and lose your life as the result, then I would consider that a sacrifice.

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.

As for Jesus not knowing, funny you should say that, cuz I just came across this verse for another thread:
Mark 10:32 "32

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.

 

[Ketzer]

I will participate in your new thread

fine, I have just opened it at "science and religion"

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Seems the most likely scenario.

While Jesus championed the poor and sick, he drove attention to his cause by hitting the religion authority were it hurt. Their pocket book.

Perhaps caused the outrage at the trial by the wealthy Judeans which prevented his release. Caiaphas played the Judeans and Pilate well to deal with what ever threat he saw Jesus to be.

 

[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.

The secular begrudgingly giving Jesus his place in history?

Not so long ago many argued for his non-existence. Historical seems the new code word for secular.