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]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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?

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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!

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by outhouse

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]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

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]

Originally Posted by outhouse

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).

Originally Posted by outhouse

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?

Originally Posted by outhouse

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nakosis

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.