Does Jesus' prediction and acceptance of martyrdom suggest His sincerity?

[rakovsky]

Gather round and let me tell you a story. A true story.

In 1666 the great fire of London destroyed more than three quarters of the city, so the inhabitants were, shall we say, rightly pissed off. If they ever found the knave who started it...

Does that prove anything else than his being nuts?

Hello, Hans.

This was a very interesting story, so I read about it on Wikipedia. The best explanation seems to be that he was tortured into the confession, as one of the contemporary sources claimed. The monarchy at that time was torturing people to admit to it. People were accusing the monarchy of starting the fire and people were getting so crazy looking for suspects they lynched someone else. The fact that the court convicted him when they thought he was innocent suggests more going on than just an innocent person confessing due to mental illness, but rather a political trial that was motivated to convict someone even if they knew he was innocent. That in turn suggests the motive for the confession could have come from the court that wanted the conviction in the first place (since he did not have a clear motive for confession), which in turn suggests he was one of the torture victims the historical sources mention!


In Jesus' case, he was not being forced by other people to propose Himself as a Messianic figure while being almost killed several times by enemies and teaching the prophecies about the Messiah being killed.
On another note, I think the "Confessing Sam" phenomenon is interesting, where people confess guilt out of insanity or other guilt feelings. Jesus was not suffering from a syndrome of confessing guilt, and even if he did suffer from an analogous mental syndrome, it seems unlikely all the other apostles would be suffering from it as well.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus was not suffering from a syndrome of confessing guilt, and even if he did suffer from an analogous mental syndrome, it seems unlikely all the other apostles would be suffering from it as well.

You don't know Jesus' mental state well enough to say that. Anyway it's absurd. If Jesus thought he was the Messiah, that would not have been a reason for him to feel "guilt". On the contrary. He wouldn't have been confessing guilt, but proclaiming a mission from God.

 

[rakovsky]

So do you believe there are "real miracles"?
How do you know that Jesus in fact did this? How did you verify that assertion?

How do you know the writers of the god-spiels did not just make up the whole thing?

How do you know the writers did not engage in Cognitive Dissonance Alleviation Casuistry (CDAC) after the execution of Jesus as a common criminal and the shock of knowing that the guy they thought and believed was the messiah did not do a single thing the messiah was supposed to have done and instead of admitting that they have been duped they started justifying for themselves the event by referring to some Tanakh verses that were never meant to be referring to the messiah? (see highlighted stuff in red below)

This kind of thing has been done over and over again with NUMEROUS FALSE MESSIAHS.

Have a look at this FALSE MESSIAH PHENOMENON that still till today has convinced faithfully believing followers.

Hello, Leumas.
I believe that the Old Testament does predict that the Messiah would get killed, and that the apostles were aware of this early on since the ancient prophecies about it are woven throughout the New Testament. So I think Jesus was as well. Granted, it's not so important for purposes of this topic question whether the prophecies actually say that, but whether the apostles and Jesus believed that they did.

You made a good point that believers can have a cognitive dissonance and still try to find ways to support their old beliefs. For example, in the philosophy class mentioned by another poster, the students went back on their interpretation of a philosophical question, rather than reject their underlying beliefs. In the case of the apostles however, they would have to be intentionally making up details of the miraculous Resurrection, like seeing Jesus physically risen. This is different than merely changing one's interpretation of facts to suit one's beliefs based on cognitive dissonance.

You asked: "If willingly dying for a belief is a valid justification for the veracity and truthfulness of the belief then every insanity men have ever died for would be a true one.... do you accept Islam is TRUE?"

In the case of Islam, Muhammed was not expecting to be killed for his beliefs, and his miracles were not alleged to have been seen by crowds of people, so the burden of being killed for beliefs one knew were false would not exist in those cases.

Next, you asked:

Do you know who Jim Jones was?
He drank the poison along with his followers and disciples.
He martyred himself and his very close disciples did too.
Does that mean that he was truly a holy man?

The issue is whether Jesus would go on a dishonest scam mission believing he would be killed for it. Jim Jones on the other hand did not make miraculous claims and did not go to Guyana seeking martyrdom. Rather, he became paranoid there, thinking the government was going to torture him, so he had his followers killed. He didn't drink poison himself, but was killed by a gunshot, and I heard on a program that it was from a guard because he couldn't bring himself to do it.

Finally, on the other thread I started we already discussed whether the New Testament quotes you just showed meant that the apostles were intentionally dishonest. For example, when Paul says he became like a Jew to the Jews to convert them, it doesn't mean that he was a liar, but rather fitting into their customs. He was already a pharisee, and his being part of Jewish culture did not mean he was a liar just like the fact that modern missionaries fit into local cultures doesn't mean that they are particularly untrustworthy when talking about facts of which they know.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, Barhel!

why people who were dishonest and didn't actually think they were Messianic would voluntarily accept martyrdom for it, especially when they believed that the Bible predicted the Messiah would be killed.

I assume you are asking why the other Messiahs did this. People like, Judas Maccabeus, Simon of Peraea, Athronges, Judas of Galilee , Menahem ben Judah, John of Gischala, and Simon bar Kokhba.

I am not aware of any of those figures believing that the Messianic passages said that the Messiah would be martyred, so in their case the problem would not be posed for them.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, Craig:
You made a good point that Jesus was anguished when you said:

Mark 15.34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 15.35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias. 15.36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. 15.37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

(Matthew's account copies Mark.)

It is not certain, assuming that Jesus was executed by the Romans, that he went willingly; let alone that he intended in advance to seek a martyr's death. Look at the successive Gospel accounts. In the first one Jesus seems anguished. In the last one he has arranged everything voluntarily to fulfil the scriptures. Which version, if either, is more likely to be the true one?
I may add that he is not a martyr in John's account either. He does not give his life for a cause. His death itself is the fulfilment of his role. He is not a willing casualty in the struggle for the fulfilment of any cause external to his own supernatural person.

However, this quote does not show ignorance or rejection of the prophesied role of the Messiah being killed, because in fact the quote is from Psalm 22, beginning My God My God... and talking about the person (David or David's King) being killed. David in turn n the Old Testament was used as a metaphor for the Messiah (eg. in Is. 55). So this quote shows Jesus' acknowledgement of his role as the Messiah who be killed.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, Hans!

You gave two very interesting analogies:

There are at the very least thousands of people who can testify that Sathya Sai Baba could materialize small stuff out of thin air, perform miracle healings, even resurrections, could be in two places at the same time, etc. If it's unreasonable for me to reject the Jesus stories as fabrications, do you accept Sathya Sai Baba's miracles as true? Yes? No? Maybe?

Or Sabbatai Zevi actually claimed to be the Jewish messiah, and there are contemporary claims -- as in right from the same year when it supposedly happened -- of him performing a lot of miracles. E.g., he is said to have entered a raging bonfire, stay a bit there, then exit completely untouched by the fire, not even with singed hairs or clothes. He commanded the Sun to stop, and apparently briefly it stopped. (This is one of the few cases where he himself claimed that, not just his disciples did.) And many other miracles. Hell, he's even supposed to have been taken bodily to heavens from the trial presided by the Sultan, and a simulacrum left in his place. Do you then accept him as the Messiah? Yes? No? Maybe?

However, are all the same elements in favor of the Christians' story present?
Namely, did the religious leaders in those cases go into their mission expecting to be brutally killed, and were they killed and their followers severely persecuted while knowing whether or not the alleged miracles were physically true or not?

In the case of the miracles of the Asian guru you mentioned, perhaps the people could have been fooled- the small things could have been a magic trick like normal magicians pull, and miracle healings could be real instances of people healing amazingly from illnesses, but not necessarily because the religious leader accomplished it.

In Sabbatai's case, the things you mentioned could be exaggerations. A person can go through a fire for a bit without getting hurt by it. Maybe he was not really standing right in the middle of a huge bonfire, but some natural variation of that happened like normal people have done. And how would you know if he left a simulcrum in place? The one author of that claim could just be making it up without it being observably false to other people, or he could even think it's true, since it would not be observably false. Finally, in the case of Sabbatai, he did not accept martyrdom, but rather accepted Islam, which undermines his claim.

On the other hand, in the case of the resurrection story, the resurrection appearances would have to either be true or intentionally fabricated and known to be clearly so by over a dozen people.

In any case, the topic here is not whether the apostles would make up the resurrection stories, but Why if Jesus did think that the prophecies predicted the Messiah being killed that he would nonetheless follow this Messianic path up to when He was killed unless he sincerely believed He was the Messiah?

I suppose it does have relevance though, because if He was sincere about it, it suggests that the apostles were also sincere in believing this and they weren't all intentionally and consciously putting on a charade.

 

[Craig4]

Hello, Hans.

This was a very interesting story, so I read about it on Wikipedia. The best explanation seems to be that he was tortured into the confession, as one of the contemporary sources claimed. The monarchy at that time was torturing people to admit to it. People were accusing the monarchy of starting the fire and people were getting so crazy looking for suspects they lynched someone else. The fact that the court convicted him when they thought he was innocent suggests more going on than just an innocent person confessing due to mental illness, but rather a political trial that was motivated to convict someone even if they knew he was innocent. That in turn suggests the motive for the confession could have come from the court that wanted the conviction in the first place (since he did not have a clear motive for confession), which in turn suggests he was one of the torture victims the historical sources mention!


In Jesus' case, he was not being forced by other people to propose Himself as a Messianic figure while being almost killed several times by enemies and teaching the prophecies about the Messiah being killed.
On another note, I think the "Confessing Sam" phenomenon is interesting, where people confess guilt out of insanity or other guilt feelings. Jesus was not suffering from a syndrome of confessing guilt, and even if he did suffer from an analogous mental syndrome, it seems unlikely all the other apostles would be suffering from it as well.

You seem to be assuming that the Biblical account is an accurate representation of what happened. Why is that?

 

[rakovsky]

You seem to be assuming that the Biblical account is an accurate representation of what happened. Why is that?

Hello, Craig!
That is a good question. The assumption is just for purposes of a critical reading of the narrative in this topic thread. Namely: If it were true that this proved Jesus' sincerity, then we would have to either accept Jesus was sincere or that one of the premises was incorrect. It doesn't mean that we accept the premises that Jesus existed or He understood the prophecy.

It just helps us narrow down the best explanations for what happened.

Regards.

 

[Craig4]

I don't see how. When there is no reason to believe your source material is correct, I can't see how evaluating that source material gets you closer to what happened.

 

[Craig B]

Hello, Craig:
You made a good point that Jesus was anguished when you said:

However, this quote does not show ignorance or rejection of the prophesied role of the Messiah being killed, because in fact the quote is from Psalm 22, beginning My God My God... and talking about the person (David or David's King) being killed. David in turn n the Old Testament was used as a metaphor for the Messiah (eg. in Is. 55). So this quote shows Jesus' acknowledgement of his role as the Messiah who be killed.

This is all outlandish. There is no suggestion that the sufferer in Ps 22 is David, or "David's King" whoever that may be. David was not a "metaphor" for the Messiah. He WAS a Messiah - an anointed King.

In Is 55 I see no reference to a messiah, but I see it in Is 45. This is a messiah, and he is not killed, but a conqueror.

45 “This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut: 2 I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. 3 I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel, who summons you by name.

Etc. That's a Messiah. That's what they do, with the help of God. A defeated messiah is a failed messiah. A false one, like the ones enumerated by Gamaliel in Acts 5, who failed in the task of expelling the Romans.

 

[asydhouse]

I have a hard time understanding how Jesus' mindset of Messianic martyrdom would be compatible with him being a fraud.
<snip>

What was the name of that fraud who martyred himself and all his wives and children in a fire when under siege by the Feds in Waco?

Then there's the other death cults, like Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.

Deluded people, but still objectively fraudulent claims of special knowledge and cosmic importance.

 

[asydhouse]

IF the stories were true.
And IF Jesus actually existed.
Then it would suggest his dishonesty.
Where is the sincerity and martyrdom in an immortal faking its own death and resurrection?

Excellent point!

 

[Aepervius]

I have a hard time understanding how Jesus' mindset of Messianic martyrdom would be compatible with him being a fraud.

It is compatible with him being a fraud because people kill themselves all the time over belief, even belief which are not compatible with each other. See for example cults which suicide massively.

Martyrdom does not imply any truth over the belief whatsoever. Neither does it imply falsehood. Martyrdom says NOTHING about the veracity of the belief, except that you are willing to die for it.

 

[asydhouse]

Whenever I hear believers spouting on about Jesus I think of the Great American Hero Paul_Bunyan^WP. Given a different Age and a century or so . . .

And at least Paul has a opera!
http://englishtouringopera.org.uk/productions/paul-bunyan

Jesus has only a musical.

Paul Bunyan and his blue ox Babe! Much better stories than in the bible, too.

 

[Donn]

The story involves miracles. Why would anyone be silly enough to make up stuff about miracles? Therefore there really were miracles. Therefore the story rings true, because who would be silly enough to make up stuff about miracles? I mean, come on, miracles! The adults are believing now, don't be doubting miracles.

 

[Peter i]

What was the name of that fraud who martyred himself and all his wives and children in a fire when under siege by the Feds in Waco?

This one:

David Koresh (born Vernon Wayne Howell; August 17, 1959 – April 19, 1993) was the American leader of the Branch Davidians religious sect, believing himself to be its final prophet.

 

[Craig B]

However, this quote does not show ignorance or rejection of the prophesied role of the Messiah being killed, because in fact the quote is from Psalm 22, beginning My God My God... and talking about the person (David or David's King) being killed. David in turn n the Old Testament was used as a metaphor for the Messiah (eg. in Is. 55). So this quote shows Jesus' acknowledgement of his role as the Messiah who be killed.

Where in Ps 22 are we told that the sufferer is killed?

19 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the Lord will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

 

[Craig B]

On the other hand, in the case of the resurrection story, the resurrection appearances would have to either be true or intentionally fabricated and known to be clearly so by over a dozen people.

Which resurrection story? There is none in Mark, and the others are notoriously contradictory. Why a dozen people? Why not 500 people, as Paul avers in 1 Corinthians 15:6?

 

[Peter i]

Which resurrection story? There is none in Mark, and the others are notoriously contradictory. Why a dozen people? Why not 500 people, as Paul avers in 1 Corinthians 15:6?

And most religions have some kind of resurrection stories. It is not something Christianity invented.

Returning from the dead is truly miraculous!

 

[Craig B]

And most religions have some kind of resurrection stories. It is not something Christianity invented.

Returning from the dead is truly miraculous!

And the gradual merging of the resurrected being with the Creator, as aspects of the same Divinity, wasn't invented by Christians either.

Ptah-Seker (who resulted from the identification of Creator god Ptah with Seker), god of reincarnation, thus gradually became identified with Osiris, the two becoming Ptah-Seker-Osiris. As the sun was thought to spend the night in the underworld, and was subsequently reincarnated every morning, Ptah-Seker-Osiris was identified as both Creator god, king of the underworld, god of the afterlife, reincarnation, life, death, and resurrection.

The gift of resurrection is gradually thought to be enjoyed by all righteous people too.

The Kings of Egypt were associated with Osiris in death — as Osiris rose from the dead they would, in union with him, inherit eternal life through a process of imitative magic. By the New Kingdom all people, not just pharaohs, were believed to be associated with Osiris at death, if they incurred the costs of the assimilation rituals.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris