Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the story...Jesus was 100% innocent...was willing to die to save all others...and died by way of incredible torture, but forgave, blessed & loved his executioners.
If any other redeemed all humanity by their sacrifice, was innocent, and loved those that persecuted them...it would not be a insult.
Now add in...rose from the dead after being killed. So...to compare, anyone else would have to do that too.
As per the story.
It isn't an insult to actual martyrs, because they are by definition dead, having sacrificed their lives for a cause.
Martyr as an insult is used for people who act as if they sacrificing themselves but are playing up their suffering to get sympathy from others.
I am not aware of "martyr" being used in a negative way other than someone claiming martyrdom when they are simply whining about some minor hardship or lack of recognition for their accustomed privilege. Its use in this way actually makes the literal designation of a legitimate "martyr" more potent.
Where the cognitive dissonance comes in with Jesus is that his sacrifice on the cross wasn't much of a sacrifice since he knew he was god and would be resurrected. Even the somewhat vague references to him visiting hell after the crucifixion and his final pleading words ("my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?") would be less problematic for him because his omniscient foreknowledge told him that he would ultimately (and in fact, shortly) be seated safely back at the right hand of this heavenly father anyway. And even if he didn't have the foreknowledge, that is what happened.
In the normal mechanism of substitutionary atonement, the scapegoat had the sins of the person(s) sacrificed for put on him, and then he was killed, in the normal, permanent sense of the word. The scapegoat gave up its life and was a true sacrifice. On a net basis, Jesus gave up nothing at all and so in what sense is he either a sacrifice of a martyr? For me, that's the far more interesting and useful question.
I am not aware of "martyr" being used in a negative way other than someone claiming martyrdom when they are simply whining about some minor hardship or lack of recognition for their accustomed privilege. Its use in this way actually makes the literal designation of a legitimate "martyr" more potent.
Where the cognitive dissonance comes in with Jesus is that his sacrifice on the cross wasn't much of a sacrifice since he knew he was god and would be resurrected. Even the somewhat vague references to him visiting hell after the crucifixion and his final pleading words ("my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?") would be less problematic for him because his omniscient foreknowledge told him that he would ultimately (and in fact, shortly) be seated safely back at the right hand of this heavenly father anyway. And even if he didn't have the foreknowledge, that is what happened.
In the normal mechanism of substitutionary atonement, the scapegoat had the sins of the person(s) sacrificed for put on him, and then he was killed, in the normal, permanent sense of the word. The scapegoat gave up its life and was a true sacrifice. On a net basis, Jesus gave up nothing at all and so in what sense is he either a sacrifice of a martyr? For me, that's the far more interesting and useful question.
Have you considered the absurdity of believing that Jesus came into this world as God incarnate to be scourged and crucified to satisfy His wrath and vengeance toward us. How is that "Good tidings of great joy to all people?" The REAL good tidings is that God joined humanity and removed any possibility of permanent separation from Him. What we did to Him was a true sacrifice because He endured our ignorance and wrath out of agape love and forgiveness because we do not know what we do and NEVER have known concerning God. God actually wants us to avoid any negative spiritual consequences. He is not imposing them on us out of wrath.
That is why He became one of us so that we would learn who God REALLY is and what He really wants from us. THAT is "Good tidings of great joy to all people." As it turns out, we screwed it up big time by misinterpreting what Jesus did in our ignorance and barbarity. My amazement is that it has been accepted for so long after we became more knowledgeable and civilized people. I cannot understand the appeal of a barbaric wrathful and vengeful War God in this day and age. The God of Jesus makes much more sense and is far more desirable and deserving of love.
Have you considered the absurdity of believing that Jesus came into this world as God incarnate to be scourged and crucified to satisfy His wrath and vengeance toward us. How is that "Good tidings of great joy to all people?" The REAL good tidings is that God joined humanity and removed any possibility of permanent separation from Him. What we did to Him was a true sacrifice because He endured our ignorance and wrath out of agape love and forgiveness because we do not know what we do and NEVER have known concerning God. God actually wants us to avoid any negative spiritual consequences. He is not imposing them on us out of wrath.
That is why He became one of us so that we would learn who God REALLY is and what He really wants from us. THAT is "Good tidings of great joy to all people." As it turns out, we screwed it up big time by misinterpreting what Jesus did in our ignorance and barbarity. My amazement is that it has been accepted for so long after we became more knowledgeable and civilized people. I cannot understand the appeal of a barbaric wrathful and vengeful War God in this day and age. The God of Jesus makes much more sense and is far more desirable and deserving of love.
Jesus as depicted in the gospel accounts was certainly harmed, humiliated and inconvenienced, but sometimes I think the baroque nature of the death in the narrative uses the most horrific demise known at the time to try to compensate for the fact that it was ultimately a very short term problem. I'm sorry, I'm not impressed that he "endured our ignorance" for, what ... a day or three, depending on how you measure it?
Now in terms of theological outcomes, if you believe that sort of thing, it was important that it happened, and no one else could have done it. That's a separate question though. The question is, what did it actually cost him on a net basis?
His life? Nope.
His relationship to god? Nope.
The accomplishment of his stated goals? Nope.
His followers? Nope.
I'm just saying that the metaphor of the scapegoat breaks down rather badly here. I get that you don't value that metaphor anyway, since you see it as "primitive and barbaric" (and I don't disagree) but I'm talking about what's important to most of Christianity.
God chose the goodness of life at the start, and said the darkness is not a good thing ... All men and women have sinned against God and are condemned to die in their sins ..... So God sent His son Jesus to be born into the earth, and He was innocent of all .......... God allowed His son to be killed by carnal people, which gave God the judgment He needed to give people life eternal, and they would be with God forever and a day. .... Where when people would side with Jesus and love Him they could be saved of sin and Be with God forever more ........ Then people who ignore this called to side with Jesus would be equal to the sinners who killed Jesus and would continue to die in the sins
Jesus as depicted in the gospel accounts was certainly harmed, humiliated and inconvenienced, but sometimes I think the baroque nature of the death in the narrative uses the most horrific demise known at the time to try to compensate for the fact that it was ultimately a very short term problem. I'm sorry, I'm not impressed that he "endured our ignorance" for, what ... a day or three, depending on how you measure it?
Now in terms of theological outcomes, if you believe that sort of thing, it was important that it happened, and no one else could have done it. That's a separate question though. The question is, what did it actually cost him on a net basis?
His life? Nope.
His relationship to god? Nope.
The accomplishment of his stated goals? Nope.
His followers? Nope.
I'm just saying that the metaphor of the scapegoat breaks down rather badly here. I get that you don't value that metaphor anyway, since you see it as "primitive and barbaric" (and I don't disagree) but I'm talking about what's important to most of Christianity.
But nothing could cost God anything, because God is all in all and all-sufficient.
The marvel is that God became a man along with all the worst that that entails for absolutely no reason other than to benefit us.
When one considers the greatness of God and the insignificance of man, that's certainly worth more than a passing thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
