Was Jesus a victim of self aggrandizing suicide?

[Greatest I am]

Was Jesus a victim of self aggrandizing suicide?

 

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab-Videos/07451_00

 

My position is simple.

 

To offer or be a scapegoat for others who will not step up to their own responsibilities and consequences for their action is immoral and self aggrandizing. I see mythical Jesus as doing just that.

 

To accept the sacrifice of a scapegoat Jesus and to try to profit from his death is also immoral.

 

 

Scripture indicates, Trinitarians aside, that God the Father sent his son to die for mankind to fulfill a need that God himself created. That of a blood sacrifice to forgive sin when he has the power to forgive sin without it.

 

 

As above so below.

 

For us to believe that God would plan for and send his son to die, we would have to think it normal and good for a father to bury his son. Any good man would reject such an example of good conduct as definitely not good, natural or moral. Any God the father, or earthly father, worth his title, would step up himself for such a task yet Bible God takes the cowardly route and sends his son. What a pathetic God. What pathetic followers he also has who would think that this is the way things should be.

 

Eze 18;20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Psa 49;7

None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

 

 

Do you recognize the immorality of believers using Jesus as a scapegoat and of them trying to profit from his murder?

 

If his death was a suicide, which is the way I see it, is it moral for believers to try to profit from his pathetic self aggrandizing sacrifice?

 

Regards

 

DL

Edited June 2, 2011 by Greatest I am

[lemur]

What could Jesus have done to prevent his killing?

[Marat]

Wasn't it already written in the scriptures, or at least regarded by Jews in Judea circa 30 A.D. as having been written, that the Son of Man would have to die so that God's plan for the world could unfold? If we accept this position, then Christ's motivation may just have been to fulfill the predetermined, divine eschaton rather than to perform an act of suicide for self-aggrandizement. If we accept this interpretation, then Judas as well was just doing what was necessary to bring about the required cosmological evolution, rather than committing a sin, as he is often seen by Christians today as having done.

[lemur]

Wasn't it already written in the scriptures, or at least regarded by Jews in Judea circa 30 A.D. as having been written, that the Son of Man would have to die so that God's plan for the world could unfold? If we accept this position, then Christ's motivation may just have been to fulfill the predetermined, divine eschaton rather than to perform an act of suicide for self-aggrandizement. If we accept this interpretation, then Judas as well was just doing what was necessary to bring about the required cosmological evolution, rather than committing a sin, as he is often seen by Christians today as having done.

It is actually interesting to account for the reasons why Jesus was persecuted and killed. You could easily make the argument that he wouldn't have been if he would have been more submissive toward the authorities that became angered at him. On the other hand, you could also say that he was devoutly pursuing the Jewish laws and that he did not resist the Roman authorities either. So then you might say that he was just too zealous in his mission and he should have just chilled out and then he wouldn't have been persecuted/killed. If I understand typical anti-Christian disdain, it centers around the idea that Christians think they are supposed to go around saving the world instead of just minding their own business. If you subscribe to that belief, then I could imagine you saying that Jesus earned his fate and that he shouldn't have gone around preaching his beliefs and inspiring people because that interfered with the ability of religious and state authorities to dominate and subdue them.

[Athena]

What could Jesus have done to prevent his killing?

 

He could have avoided making a scene on the day, the Roman's would have been on high alert. Jesus was a typical 30 year anarchist, pushing to see how far he go. Some Jews were more rebellious to Roman rule than others. The Rabi in the temple had too much to loose by causing the Roman's trouble, and it was their responsibility to control the trouble makers. The poor rural Jews were resentful of the wealth and privilege of the city Jews, especially the Rabi and Jews who held positions of power and privilege under the rule of Rome. Jesus took action against both when he over turned the tables on the day of Pass Over, when many would come to the city and the Romans would be on high alert. He put the high Jewish officials in the position of having to prove to the Romans that they would not tolerate trouble makers, because the Romans were ready to come down hard on all the Jews, if they caused trouble.

 

What Jesus did is pretty typical of young men who see themselves as defenders of social justice. It was pretty much as Greatest I am said. The rash act of a young man that lead to his demise. He was free to be a pain in the neck to the Rabi he challenged, but not to arouse Rome's fear of rebellion.

 

As far of the rest of Greatest I am arguments, it blows me away that people today are still willing to worship a God who wanted animals and human sacrifices. This is such an archaic belief! It goes to show how powerful mythology can be. Around the world, humans who killed to eat, felt badly about the killing and came up with ideas about appeasing the animals spirit or a creator/God. Perhaps a thanksgiving, as native Americans practiced. The Jewish twist is different from people giving their god's and goddess's gifts, because it is associated with a concept of guilt not all humans have, and it is made worse with Plato's concept of perfection. Notice, the God of Abraham is perfect, Jesus was suppose to be perfect. Earlier gods and goddesses were not perfect. This association with guilt and imperfection, is a major turning point for humanity. It is a loss of innocence. I rather go back to Sumer and an age of worshiping gods and goddesses in innocence. The Garden of Eden and flood are Sumerian stories that were translated by Hebrews and changed in the translation, bringing us to a loss of innocence.

 

This loss of innocence generates hell on earth. Think to yourself "clear mind, clear heart". What is your state of being when thinking "clear mind, clear heart". If you answer every negative thought with "clear mind, clear heart" what happens to your state being? Now try "I am guilty and you are guilty". Now what is your state of being? Which do you think is more apt to have good results? If you are born guilty, and everyone is born into sin, and your people are suffering, and you are young and passionate about social justice, what do think will happen? Jesus was not working with a clear mind and clear heart. He was working with a jealous, fearsome, and punishing God, and passion about social justice. His followers loved him, but not the Jews he threatened with his act of rebellion.

 

A lot of people were expecting a savoir and the end of time, not just Jews. Many thought the eruption of Mount Vesuvius that covered Pompeii, was the beginning of the end. It really helped conversion into a religion promising to save people, because the human sacrifice had been made.

[lemur]

He could have avoided making a scene on the day, the Roman's would have been on high alert. Jesus was a typical 30 year anarchist, pushing to see how far he go. Some Jews were more rebellious to Roman rule than others. The Rabi in the temple had too much to loose by causing the Roman's trouble, and it was their responsibility to control the trouble makers. The poor rural Jews were resentful of the wealth and privilege of the city Jews, especially the Rabi and Jews who held positions of power and privilege under the rule of Rome. Jesus took action against both when he over turned the tables on the day of Pass Over, when many would come to the city and the Romans would be on high alert. He put the high Jewish officials in the position of having to prove to the Romans that they would not tolerate trouble makers, because the Romans were ready to come down hard on all the Jews, if they caused trouble.

 

I agree with this interpretation, but what I find interesting about it is that it says what most people seem to be unwilling to say directly to Christians: i.e. that Jesus was a trouble-maker and that he caused his own persecution and killing by provoking existing authorities and that the righteousness of himself and his teachings are really peripheral. The view is that authority should be obeyed, whether right or wrong, in the service of keeping the peace regardless of corruption or injustice. The fact that people would take sides with corrupt authorities in persecuting and killing someone just for making them look bad or preaching inconvenient truths supports the idea that Jesus died for everyone's sins - insofar as everyone has the sin of cooperating with unjust authorities against 'trouble-makers' like Jesus. This was, in fact, Jesus' main message: that blasphemy of Holy Spirit was a worse sin than blasphemy or disobedience to any worldly authority and he was persecuted and killed for putting holy authority above the authority of the secular and religious elites. So, indeed he was an anarchist who was persecuted and killed for anarchy - but would you honestly claim that persecution and killing of people in the interest of reinforcing social hierarchy is legitimate? If Jesus would have supported the authorities and cooperated with them to save his own life, wouldn't that have made him untrue to his faith? So, considering that everyone who survives authoritarianism has cooperated with it in some way, aren't we all indeed sinners responsible for Jesus' death by cooperating with the system of power that persecutes and kills people like him?

[Athena]

I agree with this interpretation, but what I find interesting about it is that it says what most people seem to be unwilling to say directly to Christians: i.e. that Jesus was a trouble-maker and that he caused his own persecution and killing by provoking existing authorities and that the righteousness of himself and his teachings are really peripheral. The view is that authority should be obeyed, whether right or wrong, in the service of keeping the peace regardless of corruption or injustice. The fact that people would take sides with corrupt authorities in persecuting and killing someone just for making them look bad or preaching inconvenient truths supports the idea that Jesus died for everyone's sins - insofar as everyone has the sin of cooperating with unjust authorities against 'trouble-makers' like Jesus. This was, in fact, Jesus' main message: that blasphemy of Holy Spirit was a worse sin than blasphemy or disobedience to any worldly authority and he was persecuted and killed for putting holy authority above the authority of the secular and religious elites. So, indeed he was an anarchist who was persecuted and killed for anarchy - but would you honestly claim that persecution and killing of people in the interest of reinforcing social hierarchy is legitimate? If Jesus would have supported the authorities and cooperated with them to save his own life, wouldn't that have made him untrue to his faith? So, considering that everyone who survives authoritarianism has cooperated with it in some way, aren't we all indeed sinners responsible for Jesus' death by cooperating with the system of power that persecutes and kills people like him?

 

The conflict the Jews had with Greeks and then Romans, and each other, is much more worldly than concerns about Holy Spirit issues. I don't think authority can tolerate rebellious groups committing acts of violence and piracy, and preventing Rome from getting grain from Egypt. Authority is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it is necessary for our shared protection and progress. You don't get to molest the Greeks because you don't like them selling birds in front of the temple. This is Rome, a multi cultural civilization with freedom of religion, and an ingenious legal system for handling disputes between people of different cultures. If the Jews can not live in peace with others, they need to leave Rome. Jesus threatened everyone, by acting out. His misbehavior on a day when everyone was coming to celebrate passover, and the Romans were on guard against trouble, should not be taken as a separate event, but in context with the ongoing conflict between Jews, Greeks and Rome. The link explains part of the on going conflict.

 

http://en.wikipedia....%80%93Roman_War

 

Some years earlier the Maccabees gave the Greeks a real battle for power. This is a line of Jewish rulers, who lead a revolt against Antiochus IV, who wanted to stamp out the superstitious group of Jews, in favor of a more secular, Hellenistic way life. A way of life that did not respect the Jewish system of being born into a ruling class, and therefore, created a real worldly power struggle. The Maccabees fled to the Judean hills, and were joined by more Jews, and in warfare won back most of Jerusalem.

 

This is an ongoing fight Jesus stepped into with interesting political twist. Not a one man fight against those in power, or who who may have been corrupt that day. Jesus took issue with the Jewish hierarchy, who were rich, because his people were rural people who were not rich and didn't have power. He did this on a day that was most apt to get a Roman response. He was a 30 year old man, no different from the young anarchist today. This is really closer to what Greatest I am, said.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

The conflict the Jews had with Greeks and then Romans, and each other, is much more worldly than concerns about Holy Spirit issues. I don't think authority can tolerate rebellious groups committing acts of violence and piracy. Authority is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it is necessary for our shared protection and progress. You don't get to molest the Greeks because you don't like them selling birds in front of the temple. This is Rome, a multi cultural civilization with freedom of religion, and an ingenious legal system for handling disputes between people of different cultures. If the Jews can not live in peace with others, they need to leave Rome. Jesus threatened everyone, by acting out. His misbehavior on a day when everyone was coming to celebrate passover, and the Romans were on guard against trouble, should not be taken as a separate event, but in context with the ongoing conflict between Jews, Greeks and Rome.

 

This reminds me of my favorite line from the movie, The Passion of Christ, where Pontius Pilate says to his wife something like, "he talks of truth, what is truth?" She says something like that he knows what truth is, to which he replies something like, "the only truth I know is that there is a mob of people out there who is going to rebel if I let this innocent man go." So you can take sides with authoritarian claiming innocent victims just because the masses are rising up against an individual or minority, but that doesn't make it right. If Pilate found Jesus innocent, he should have protected him regardless of the political consequences. It may be inconvenient to go against an angry mob, but Pilate and his soldiers could have subdued the uprising easily, I think. Being true to the Holy Spirit would have meant that Pilate listened to his own truth that he found no fault in Jesus. Instead he betrayed his better judgment and chose for political expediency. That may create tranquility in the short-term, but ultimately it creates a precedent for the injustice to reverberate and multiply.

[Greatest I am]

What could Jesus have done to prevent his killing?

 

Not antagonize the Jewish hierarchy for one and just keep his mouth shut for another.

Scripture shows, with his knowledge of Judas' forthcoming kiss, that he would be arrested. He had lots of time to get out of town.

 

Regards

DL

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wasn't it already written in the scriptures, or at least regarded by Jews in Judea circa 30 A.D. as having been written, that the Son of Man would have to die so that God's plan for the world could unfold?

No, the Jews thought the opposite -- the Messiah would be a grand leader. This produced some friction with the early Christians, because the Jews thought it absurd that the Messiah would be crucified.

 

There is, however, a large portion of New Testament scripture dedicated to showing that Jesus' death was indeed prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures.

 

If we accept this position, then Christ's motivation may just have been to fulfill the predetermined, divine eschaton rather than to perform an act of suicide for self-aggrandizement.

As far as I am aware, this is the widely accepted Christian interpretation.

[Greatest I am]

Wasn't it already written in the scriptures, or at least regarded by Jews in Judea circa 30 A.D. as having been written, that the Son of Man would have to die so that God's plan for the world could unfold? If we accept this position, then Christ's motivation may just have been to fulfill the predetermined, divine eschaton rather than to perform an act of suicide for self-aggrandizement. If we accept this interpretation, then Judas as well was just doing what was necessary to bring about the required cosmological evolution, rather than committing a sin, as he is often seen by Christians today as having done.

 

Yes. Christian should be thanking Judas instead of vilifying him if they believe that Jesus planed to die for them.

They would have to see Jesus using him as a tool. That is the Gnostic view BTW.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[lemur]

Not antagonize the Jewish hierarchy for one and just keep his mouth shut for another.

Scripture shows, with his knowledge of Judas' forthcoming kiss, that he would be arrested. He had lots of time to get out of town.

I always take the bait and respond to your posts but I am starting to think that you just post things to be provocative. I don't think you have any constructive points to make besides generating controversial verbiage. Isn't that just trolling?

[Athena]

This reminds me of my favorite line from the movie, The Passion of Christ, where Pontius Pilate says to his wife something like, "he talks of truth, what is truth?" She says something like that he knows what truth is, to which he replies something like, "the only truth I know is that there is a mob of people out there who is going to rebel if I let this innocent man go." So you can take sides with authoritarian claiming innocent victims just because the masses are rising up against an individual or minority, but that doesn't make it right. If Pilate found Jesus innocent, he should have protected him regardless of the political consequences. It may be inconvenient to go against an angry mob, but Pilate and his soldiers could have subdued the uprising easily, I think. Being true to the Holy Spirit would have meant that Pilate listened to his own truth that he found no fault in Jesus. Instead he betrayed his better judgment and chose for political expediency. That may create tranquility in the short-term, but ultimately it creates a precedent for the injustice to reverberate and multiply.

 

Why would the mob want Jesus punished? There is something fishing about this story. Like maybe something didn't get said in the telling of the story?

[Greatest I am]

I always take the bait and respond to your posts but I am starting to think that you just post things to be provocative. I don't think you have any constructive points to make besides generating controversial verbiage. Isn't that just trolling?

 

You asked a question and I answered it. Is that trolling?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[lemur]

Why would the mob want Jesus punished? There is something fishing about this story. Like maybe something didn't get said in the telling of the story?

I have heard various reasons given and I don't know which are speculation or not. Regardless, I don't see any reason why an individual should be punished, let alone crucified, for expression. On thing that is clear is that the crowd requested Pontius Pilate execute Jesus because they said their laws didn't allow it. That is blasphemy of Holy Spirit. If you sincerely believe in a law, you don't seek someone else to break it for you because you're not allowed to.

[Greatest I am]

I have heard various reasons given and I don't know which are speculation or not. Regardless, I don't see any reason why an individual should be punished, let alone crucified, for expression. On thing that is clear is that the crowd requested Pontius Pilate execute Jesus because they said their laws didn't allow it. That is blasphemy of Holy Spirit. If you sincerely believe in a law, you don't seek someone else to break it for you because you're not allowed to.

 

Memory fails me.

 

Was Jesus crucified on the Sabbath?

 

Jews could not work on the Sabbath and the Romans did not have that restrictions.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Marat]

I think the answer is that the Jewish Sabbath started on the evening of Christ's execution, which is why they were in a hurry to break his legs so that he would die, thus allowing them to wrap things up before the Holy Day.

[Greatest I am]

I think the answer is that the Jewish Sabbath started on the evening of Christ's execution, which is why they were in a hurry to break his legs so that he would die, thus allowing them to wrap things up before the Holy Day.

 

Thanks for this.

 

There was always something to do with timing.

 

Even the trial.

It has been speculated that all of the events that supposedly happened, the quick trial and gathering the judges and making the presentation to the Romans etc, just could not have happened that quickly.

 

Regards

 

DL