Was the death of Jesus a Blue Suicide?

[horizon_mj1]

'Blue suicide' for the contributor who asked means deliberately behaving in a manner that will provoke the authorities (cops in blue) into killing you.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son as a ransom that those who believeth in him might not perish.

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven. For our sake he suffered death. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I have come as a light into the world. I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me."

Clearly a planned act, for the purposes of atonement for believers. He had a moment when he almost bottled out from the plan, 'Father, don't make me drink of this bitter cup' or some such, but despite opportunities to avoid execution, pressed on. So, yes, in answer to the OP, a blue suicide.

The distasteful thing about all of this, as Christopher Hitchens says, is that anyone should think that they can take responsibility, or 'atone', for my sins. Pay my debts, take my punishment for me (even death), yes, but not my responsibility for my wrong-doings.

Would you really like to know what is distasteful?; Closed minds:yes:. With God anything is possible, correct? So how is it you are so sure that Jesus did not ask Judas to assure the Romans captured Him eh, were you there? In fact many Historians see this as a possibility; I had no clue that just because you disagree that it would make it wrong if it were so

 

[horizon_mj1]

Malcom X was not conspiring with others to be resurrected after death, for the purpose of atoning for the sins of those who chose to believe in his divinity.

Wow! Quite a comparison, Malcom X to Christ, what church is it you attend, pray tell?

 

[horizon_mj1]

Jesus wasn't conspiring either. Also, this had nothing to do with someone believing in the divinity of Jesus. In fact, the Gospels, especially the early ones, portray him as fully human. So does Paul. It doesn't have anything to do with believing in his divinity.

And whatever the purpose, it really matters little here. The intent is the same. The intent for both was to help others. Both preached a message they fully knew would be the death of them (or at the very least, knew would make people want to kill them), and both continued preaching the message regardless of the fact that death was basically inevitable if they continued.

Very well said Fallingblood:yes:

 

[Anonymouse]

Fallingblood-That implies that he did not have a want to die. Really, to say that what he did was a suicide, simply is taking what he did out of context.

The one event in Jesus’ life that I found to be very uncharacteristic is the turning of the tables at the temple. If the legion of followers that Jesus accumulated was not enough to spark authority’s attention, the physical force he used to upset and destroy the temple dealer tables gives a fair indication that he wanted to attract law authorities.

In a resemblance to the wiki article I introduced, they discuss Charles Whitman:

Many modern cases that pre-date the formal recognition of the phenomenon have been identified or speculated by historians as matching the pattern now known as suicide by cop. According to authors Mark Lindsay and David Lester, Houston McCoy, one of the two Austin Police Department officers who shot and killed Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower sniper, believed that Whitman could have shot him and fellow officer Ramiro Martinez, but "he was waiting for them, and wanted to be shot."

Jesus had a chance to fight and flee in the Garden Of Gethsemane but does not resist arrest.


Before (and during) the cross bearing at Calvary, Jesus could have exerted force to kill and escape his executioners but did not take the chance. The Bible paints a picture of Jesus voluntarily accepting (welcoming?) his death at the hand of current authorities.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I am not sure but I think those Christians who had gotten themselves sacrificed to the lions in the Colosseum would definitely qualify as being a blue suicide.

 

[victormeldrew]

Jesus wasn't conspiring either. Also, this had nothing to do with someone believing in the divinity of Jesus. In fact, the Gospels, especially the early ones, portray him as fully human. So does Paul. It doesn't have anything to do with believing in his divinity.

And whatever the purpose, it really matters little here. The intent is the same. The intent for both was to help others. Both preached a message they fully knew would be the death of them (or at the very least, knew would make people want to kill them), and both continued preaching the message regardless of the fact that death was basically inevitable if they continued.

Jesus Christ believed in his own divinity, according to the Biblical accounts. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, God the Father (and probably the Holy Ghost) planned (conspired together) the sacrifice on the cross so that sinful humans might be saved. The idea of divine sacrifice is the unique selling point of Christianity.

You may not believe the Bible accounts. Fair enough, I don't believe them. Your position seems to be that Jesus was just a preacher, that he hadn't deluded even himself into thinking that he was divine, and that he certainly had no intention of getting himself martyred to prove a point. You may be right. Who knows what he was thinking?

 

[kai]

I am not sure but I think those Christians who had gotten themselves sacrificed to the lions in the Colosseum would definitely qualify as being a blue suicide.

What evidence is there that Cristians got hemslves sacrificed to lions?

 

[horizon_mj1]

The one event in Jesus’ life that I found to be very uncharacteristic is the turning of the tables at the temple. If the legion of followers that Jesus accumulated was not enough to spark authority’s attention, the physical force he used to upset and destroy the temple dealer tables gives a fair indication that he wanted to attract law authorities.

In a resemblance to the wiki article I introduced, they discuss Charles Whitman:


Jesus had a chance to fight and flee in the Garden Of Gethsemane but does not resist arrest.


Before (and during) the cross bearing at Calvary, Jesus could have exerted force to kill and escape his executioners but did not take the chance. The Bible paints a picture of Jesus voluntarily accepting (welcoming?) his death at the hand of current authorities.

Another valid plausibility. I believe when viewing Historical events, it is always better to leave every possible answer a "part" of what actually happened (unless of course properly documented).

 

[horizon_mj1]

What evidence is there that Cristians got hemslves sacrificed to lions?

The same evidence we have that Bible stories are true

 

[fallingblood]

The one event in Jesus’ life that I found to be very uncharacteristic is the turning of the tables at the temple. If the legion of followers that Jesus accumulated was not enough to spark authority’s attention, the physical force he used to upset and destroy the temple dealer tables gives a fair indication that he wanted to attract law authorities.

There is no account of Jesus having a legion of followers that participated in this act though. It was said that Jesus did it himself. And more so, when we look at what really would have happened, the actions of Jesus hardly would have destroyed the temple dealer tables. His actions would have only effected a small portion of the dealers.

This really had nothing to do with attracting the legal authorities though. In order to assume so, one has to ignore the rest of the story. Jesus explains his reason for this.

Jesus had a chance to fight and flee in the Garden Of Gethsemane but does not resist arrest.

Fighting simply would have had him killed instantly. Really, there was no chance there. And fleeing would only work if he never wanted to continue his mission. Neither were very good options for him.

Before (and during) the cross bearing at Calvary, Jesus could have exerted force to kill and escape his executioners but did not take the chance. The Bible paints a picture of Jesus voluntarily accepting (welcoming?) his death at the hand of current authorities.

Nope. That would just have made things worse. It was one man, against multiple Roman soldiers. Jesus would have stood no chance at all.

Again, you are not showing an intent on his part to actually want to die. More likely, Jesus thought that God would intervene before he was killed and actually install the Kingdom of God. That is what Jesus was preaching about the whole time.

However, if we consider the death of Jesus a blue suicide, then we also have to consider Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr to also be blue suicides. They were in the same position of Jesus. They fully knew that people were trying to kill them. They could have fled, and been alright. Yet, they didn't so that they could continue preaching their message. In doing so, they basically signed their death warrants.

Jesus was doing the same thing. He was preaching a message that would upset the Roman authorities. However, he fully believed in his message. So he was at a cross roads. Continue spreading his message and inevitably be killed, or chicken out and preserve his life? He did the one that he believed was better.

Just because one does something that will lead to their deaths, that does not constitute a suicide. There must also be an intent. We don't see that with Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus Christ believed in his own divinity, according to the Biblical accounts. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, God the Father (and probably the Holy Ghost) planned (conspired together) the sacrifice on the cross so that sinful humans might be saved. The idea of divine sacrifice is the unique selling point of Christianity.

That's debatable. In some accounts he supposedly believed in his divinity. In others, not really. As for the idea of Jesus being God and the Holy Ghost, that is a very later tradition, and is not found in the Bible, thus is moot here.

Thus your conspiring idea is also moot. At most, you could say that according to the Bible, God has a plan for various individuals. That is not conspiring.

More so, if we look at the historical Jesus, which really should be what we do here, there is no evidence he ever thought that dying would have taken away sin at all. Atonement theology is a later addition to the Jesus story, as is the divine sacrifice idea. Later additions, that are not seen to originate with Jesus.

You may not believe the Bible accounts. Fair enough, I don't believe them. Your position seems to be that Jesus was just a preacher, that he hadn't deluded even himself into thinking that he was divine, and that he certainly had no intention of getting himself martyred to prove a point. You may be right. Who knows what he was thinking?

We can look at his actions, and come to somewhat of a conclusion of at least what he was doing. What he is thinking, as with anyone, can not be fully known, and neither does it need to be.

His actions show something different than suicide in any way.

 

[fallingblood]

I am not sure but I think those Christians who had gotten themselves sacrificed to the lions in the Colosseum would definitely qualify as being a blue suicide.

Dying for something one believes in does not constitute a blue suicide.

 

[waitasec]

Dying for something one believes in does not constitute a blue suicide.

they didn't willing go to the lions, did they?

 

[victormeldrew]

His actions show something different than suicide in any way.

He had the opportunity to save himself when taken before Pilate, but chose not to. The Romans couldn't have cared less about his claim to be the Messiah (ie sent from God, not just a preacher). He wasn't the head of resistance movement that could pose any threat to them. Pilate would have been happy to send him away with a flogging. It was the Sanhedrin, who had taken him before Pilate, who appealed against that decision. They wanted him killed because he had been teaching blasphemy.

He allowed himself to be executed to fulfil the prophesies.

 

[fallingblood]

He had the opportunity to save himself when taken before Pilate, but chose not to. The Romans couldn't have cared less about his claim to be the Messiah (ie sent from God, not just a preacher). He wasn't the head of resistance movement that could pose any threat to them. Pilate would have been happy to send him away with a flogging. It was the Sanhedrin, who had taken him before Pilate, who appealed against that decision. They wanted him killed because he had been teaching blasphemy.

He allowed himself to be executed to fulfil the prophesies.

That is historically inaccurate. Pilate was ruthless. He had no problem killing Jews, especially Jews who could possibly cause a riot. And Jesus was someone who could have caused a riot simply because of the time in which he was preaching.

He was preaching a message about the Kingdom of God, which would replace the Kingdom of Earth, or Rome. He was doing this during the Jewish festival of Passover. Passover itself was a celebration of liberation. So Jesus teaching about liberation, during a time of celebration for just that, was something that could easily have started a riot. It was only logical for Pilate to get rid of him.

The Jews did not kill Jesus. Romans did. And Pilate simply would not have been forced to kill him by what the Sanhedrin wanted. Pilate killed him because he thought it was the best thing to do. He wasn't going to release a rabble-rouser during a time when riots were just boiling underneath the surface (which is why Pilate was in Jerusalem in the first place).

So no, Jesus did not have a chance to save himself in front of Pilate. He was as good as dead. Pilate was known to be ruthless, and have no problem killing Jews, especially Jews who were seen a threat to the state.

 

[fallingblood]

they didn't willing go to the lions, did they?

Some would have and other would not. I don't think it is the willingness that really matters here though. They had a choice, either to stick with what they believed, and continue with that, or to just bow down and do something that they would have thought was wrong. In choosing to stick with their guns, and not compromise their beliefs, they also made the decision to give up their lives.

 

[outhouse]

Look at Malcolm X. He had death threats. He had people who tried to kill him. Yet, he continued on with those actions, knowing that inevitably, he would die. For him, it wasn't a question of if, it was a question of when. Would that be a blue suicide? No, because the intention is something different.

but isnt sticking your head in a noose and kicking the hangman suicide???

 

[outhouse]

Dying for something one believes in does not constitute a blue suicide.

Ah but it does.

if one dies at his own choice, is it not suicide despite circumstances?

 

[victormeldrew]

That is historically inaccurate. Pilate was ruthless. He had no problem killing Jews, especially Jews who could possibly cause a riot. And Jesus was someone who could have caused a riot simply because of the time in which he was preaching.

He was preaching a message about the Kingdom of God, which would replace the Kingdom of Earth, or Rome. He was doing this during the Jewish festival of Passover. Passover itself was a celebration of liberation. So Jesus teaching about liberation, during a time of celebration for just that, was something that could easily have started a riot. It was only logical for Pilate to get rid of him.

The Jews did not kill Jesus. Romans did. And Pilate simply would not have been forced to kill him by what the Sanhedrin wanted. Pilate killed him because he thought it was the best thing to do. He wasn't going to release a rabble-rouser during a time when riots were just boiling underneath the surface (which is why Pilate was in Jerusalem in the first place).

So no, Jesus did not have a chance to save himself in front of Pilate. He was as good as dead. Pilate was known to be ruthless, and have no problem killing Jews, especially Jews who were seen a threat to the state.

One of the few events in the New Testament that all four Canonical Gospels seem to agree on is the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, and the examinations by Herod and Pilate. And the descriptions of events ring true. A committee of religious leaders trumping up charges to serve self interests. The occupying governors not really wanting to be bothered with the petty in-fighting of religious sects, finding no fault with the prisoner but passing the responsibility for his fate to the mob.

What sources can you cite that show these accounts to be historically inaccurate? Also, what exactly does an agnostic theist believe? And as horizon-mj1 says, "Comparing Malcolm X with Jesus Christ - what church is it you attend, pray tell?".

 

[outhouse]

What sources can you cite that show these accounts to be historically inaccurate?

what sources can you site that show them to be credible???


much of the 4 gospels were copied from earlier material and each other. There were no eyewitnesses to the event. You have oral tradition and little can be said with certainty about the trial.