Did Jesus commit suicide? | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

Did Jesus commit suicide?

Errr... floated up, popped out of existence... did someone see it...

Floating, I guess you could call it levitating if you wanted to sound fancy. Basically he supermaned out of there, and I believe there were somewhere between 100-500 people there at the time. Which is important for a couple of reasons, the ascension it'self was part of prophesy in The book of Daniel chapter 7 regarding the son of man. The five hundred witness had a more (at the time) modern importance, Roman emperors were recognized as divine by the empire there would be a witness close to the emperor who would claim to have seen the emperor ascend to the heavens.

When Jesus ascended in front of a crowd it was show of his divinity and authority over Rome, where an emperor may have a few witnesses Jesus had hundreds.
 
Floating, I guess you could call it levitating if you wanted to sound fancy. Basically he supermaned out of there, and I believe there were somewhere between 100-500 people there at the time. Which is important for a couple of reasons, the ascension it'self was part of prophesy in The book of Daniel chapter 7 regarding the son of man. The five hundred witness had a more (at the time) modern importance, Roman emperors were recognized as divine by the empire there would be a witness close to the emperor who would claim to have seen the emperor ascend to the heavens.

When Jesus ascended in front of a crowd it was show of his divinity and authority over Rome, where an emperor may have a few witnesses Jesus had hundreds.

Possibly matrixed? :) If it was me I would have done a couple of fly bys.
 
Floating, I guess you could call it levitating if you wanted to sound fancy. Basically he supermaned out of there, and I believe there were somewhere between 100-500 people there at the time. Which is important for a couple of reasons, the ascension it'self was part of prophesy in The book of Daniel chapter 7 regarding the son of man. The five hundred witness had a more (at the time) modern importance, Roman emperors were recognized as divine by the empire there would be a witness close to the emperor who would claim to have seen the emperor ascend to the heavens.

When Jesus ascended in front of a crowd it was show of his divinity and authority over Rome, where an emperor may have a few witnesses Jesus had hundreds.

This also would have had to be only symbolic because we now know that you don't get to heaven by simply going up - you get to outer space. So unless heaven is actually in outer space, all this would be is a display of power, and playing upon the misunderstanding of the heavens at the time.

Like the Tower of Babel - it wouldn't have reached heaven even if they had kept building it. But maybe God scattered them and confounded their language so they wouldn't come to figure that out.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
 
This also would have had to be only symbolic because we now know that you don't get to heaven by simply going up - you get to outer space. So unless heaven is actually in outer space, all this would be is a display of power, and playing upon the misunderstanding of the heavens at the time.

Like the Tower of Babel - it wouldn't have reached heaven even if they had kept building it. But maybe God scattered them and confounded their language so they wouldn't come to figure that out.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Babel is an interesting story, though honestly I haven't done enough research on it to know if that's a plausible reason, But God made the point multiple times that Heaven isn't some kingdom in the clouds. Heavens have the connotations of holiness(to be above or beyond) by saying that his is the kingdom of heaven he's saying that his kingdom is above and beyond the scope of man. Realistically God tried to make the point several times that our understanding of heaven is limited and flawed and that it will be both different and better then anything we can imagine.



But yeah interesting points.



Possibly matrixed? :) If it was me I would have done a couple of fly bys.

I like to imagine that Jesus' being dead and buried for several days and then showing up at the door being all "Let men in guys it's cold out here" is his version of a fly over.
 
[MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION]

Interestingly though, the myth about this still pervades.

How is it that when I was growing up, the idea that God was "the man in the sky" and that hell is under the ground was still a thing?

I mean sure there are plenty of people who will let you know that "Jesus was not white" and "The devil is not red with horns" but why should there even be a need to tell this?

The old "It helps people to understand something" excuse does not sit well with me because when you dumb something down past a certain level, it becomes no longer the truth.
 
@Barnabas

Interestingly though, the myth about this still pervades.

How is it that when I was growing up, the idea that God was "the man in the sky" and that hell is under the ground was still a thing?

I mean sure there are plenty of people who will let you know that "Jesus was not white" and "The devil is not red with horns" but why should there even be a need to tell this?

The old "It helps people to understand something" excuse does not sit well with me because when you dumb something down past a certain level, it becomes no longer the truth.

I can give you a couple of reasons that I personally think causes this.

1) Heaven and hell are places that are truly beyond our comprehension at the moment, we're to broken to be able to fully understand what living our daily lives in the presence of God will be like, like wise we are also still very dependent on God for our own existence so neither can we comprehend what existence would be like without him. So what we get is metaphor and allegory, that good is up and bad is down, which while not literal still informs us of the value of repentance and what the cost of sin is.

2) Most people(was going to say Christians but I think people in general is a better fit) are often biblically illiterate, knowing only what they've heard or seen depicted. They piece together a picture from quarter of a puzzle that even the best educated theologians only have access to half of. What you get is a reasonable image from the information they have, heaven being up hell being down even if it doesn't make sense.

3) That media from the past several hundreds of years has ingrained the kind of thinking about heaven and hell into us, much in the same way people still think of Satan as red satyr with a pitchfork. Much in the same way greek philosophy has influenced western thought we simply can't avoid it.


The answer is most likely a little of all three and other things that I don't know about, but from my experience these seem like the prime culprits of relatively simple misunderstandings.
 


So why buck the system. Piss off a whole bunch of people. And eventually get nailed to a cross? When you know that that is exactly what will happen to you. But you do it anyway? What is it you call that? It sounds like suicide to me. We have suicide by cop. I give you suicide by crucifixion....

Now I know the whole story. I heard it all the time at church. It just never added up for me. Other people were getting crucified. It was no secret. The bible admits this much. From the way I see it, it's suicide. Some are going to get angry that I even said it. Or even thought it. But I still wonder if he wanted to end it.​

Hmm, yeah, he made a choice not to acquiesce in his own oppression and instead to live as God and human nature intended. Everyone dies, not everyone lives.
 


So why buck the system. Piss off a whole bunch of people. And eventually get nailed to a cross? When you know that that is exactly what will happen to you. But you do it anyway? What is it you call that? It sounds like suicide to me. We have suicide by cop. I give you suicide by crucifixion....

Now I know the whole story. I heard it all the time at church. It just never added up for me. Other people were getting crucified. It was no secret. The bible admits this much. From the way I see it, it's suicide. Some are going to get angry that I even said it. Or even thought it. But I still wonder if he wanted to end it.​

He made a choice not to acquiesce in his own oppression and to live as God and human nature intended. Everyone dies, not everyone truly lives.
 
An Introduction to the Gospels
Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns.
by Marilyn Mellowes



A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."
 
An Introduction to the Gospels
Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns.
by Marilyn Mellowes



A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."

One of the interesting things to note about these dates is that they less record when the documents were written and more when copied manuscripts were written, and on another note while the gospels hit the scenes relatively late in the game, the epistles(that is every other book in the New Testament other then the gospels, Acts and Revelation) came much earlier and some can be dated to within ten years of Jesus' life(possibly earlier though admittedly I'm an outlier in this opinion).
 
I do wonder sometimes if the death of Jesus and its cultural import has something to do with the whole revolutionary suicide and to die for the people idea which seems stuck in the psyche of the left wing or progressive and populist camp.

There are ways in which the political muslims campaigns and style are within the same spectrum as Che Guevara, no matter how different the ideological underpinnings.
 
One of the interesting things to note about these dates is that they less record when the documents were written and more when copied manuscripts were written, and on another note while the gospels hit the scenes relatively late in the game, the epistles(that is every other book in the New Testament other then the gospels, Acts and Revelation) came much earlier and some can be dated to within ten years of Jesus' life(possibly earlier though admittedly I'm an outlier in this opinion).

The first written account of Jesus himself did not happened until a minimum of 30 years AFTER his death. And thats really all that's relevant here concerning Jesus.
 
The first written account of Jesus himself did not happened until a minimum of 30 years AFTER his death. And thats really all that's relevant here concerning Jesus.

Hmmm, I dont really think that's all that's important, why do you say that? What has the time lapse got to do with anything?

I'm interested as to why you say that :)
 
Guess by now everyone knows the way I feel with Jesus. Hebrews 10:1-17 KJV
 
I do wonder sometimes if the death of Jesus and its cultural import has something to do with the whole revolutionary suicide and to die for the people idea which seems stuck in the psyche of the left wing or progressive and populist camp.

There are ways in which the political muslims campaigns and style are within the same spectrum as Che Guevara, no matter how different the ideological underpinnings.

It doesn’t have to be a left-wing or progressive thing...how many young men and women have sacrificed their lives in wars that have little or nothing to do with the freedoms we enjoy in the US?
They become small-town USA martyrs.
 
The first written account of Jesus himself did not happened until a minimum of 30 years AFTER his death. And thats really all that's relevant here concerning Jesus.

That should be rephrased, the first written account appeared of Jesus within ten years if not less, of his death The epistles are constantly referring to Jesus and the things he did. What you mean to say is the first written biography of Jesus appeared thirty years after his death.

However it's clear to take away from the epistles that Jesus walked the earth as both wholly man and God, that he preformed miracles, that he was betrayed by Judas Iscariot. That he died on the cross was then resurrected three days later for the sins and salvation of humanity. That these things were first revealed to the Jews, then to the Gentiles.

In fact if you read through the epistles, I bet with some work you could recreate the whole of the gospel story.
 
I'm enjoying all the necro'd threads lately.

If Jesus is really the Son of God, Jesus came to die. So I guess that could be suicide. But He knew he was going to come back to life, at least powerful enough to fly off into the air and back to Heaven to show off His power. Seems to be something a little beyond just suicide.

If Jesus is not the Son of God, then he was going to die eventually. We don't live forever. Might as well go out with a bang.