How to Build a Messiah: Constructing Christ

[Despanan]

How to Build a Messiah: Constructing and Deconstructing the Christ Mythos

By Despanan

“People need something to believe in” is a retort I have heard often enough, most often from religious folks, when they find themselves under fire from atheist and secularist critics. It is a truism we in western culture hear all the time, a generally accepted fact which is spat out, and just as quickly accepted and forgotten; we hear it and then go about our lives as usual, its perceived veracity having no more impact than any other tautology. However, unlike many rhetorical truisms, such as “everyone has a right to their opinion” or “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” our human need for belief and purpose is actually true. For proof one need only to look at our species reaction to various churches, creeds, and philosophies to see how this longing to believe in something, anything is measurably and painfully real. If you’ve ever “felt the word” in church or were “really connected” with the crowd and the performer during a rock concert, been swept up in political fervor of a rally or just stared out across the horizon and realized the sheer scope of the natural world, then you’ve felt the sheer ecstasy of belief. Belief moves mountains, belief builds cities, and belief sees us through our darkest moments, its power is real, measurable, and immensely palpable.

It’s not surprising how much faith we put in the power of belief. Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, it is clear why we humans are pattern-seeking animals, and why these traits are desirable. Our inherent psychological need to puzzle out the environment around us, lead us to avoid traps and predators, construct weapons and tools, find mates, raise crops, domesticate animals, and split the atom. Those of us who found purpose in existence were driven to achieve, to survive, and our ability to recognize patterns gave us the psychological edge needed to build civilization and bend this world to our will, in short, belief is really the ultimate survival tool, and nature knows this. Therefore as a result of our evolution we find ourselves ascribing meaning to nearly every aspect of our lives and environment, the more meaning we can find, the more emotionally satisfied we become, while a lack of perceived meaning has lead to more than one emotional and/or spiritual crisis in our short time on this planet.

This of course can backfire, as we often see in the behavior of paranoid conspiracy theorists, convinced that simple coincidences are the machinations of the shadowy elite, or the actions of those suffering from Obsessive/Compulsive disorder, who simply MUST repeat very specific (and irrational) rituals every day in order to stave off crippling existential angst. We see the negative effects of belief in those who ascribe to snake-oil remedies like reflexology, or magnet therapy, and sadly, in the actions of fanatical terrorists out to murder infidels in the name of their god.

Let’s back up for a moment, why am I talking about belief? Well, as it just so happens I recently finished watching Jesus Christ Superstar (for like, the third time in a week I highly recommend this movie by the way, terrific acting, phenomenal casting, and a ROCKING sound track make it a musical not to be missed). For those of you unfamiliar with the piece, Superstar details the final week in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, leading up to and ending in his eventual crucifixion, basically it’s The Passion of the Christ with a lot more dancing and a lot less *****. What’s really interesting about this film however, is its portrayal of Jesus as a man – no miracles are shown, and the resurrection is left out completely. Jesus himself seems to be far less than divine, and during scenes like The Last Supper, seems genuinely hostile towards his disciples.

This got me thinking, what really happened back then, during those days of the crucifixion? The Bible certainly presents one view, but given the behavior of Jesus’ followers in the film, I think we may be dealing with a case of facts muddied by unreliable narration.

Let me explain: there is a tendency to view those depicted in the scripture from a modern context. We assume that Jesus, and Peter, and Judas thought as we do, that the Apostles were modern, and enlightened men and looked at the world in much the same way, we do today, but anthropologically speaking, this is not the case. The Twelve weren’t simply white Americans in sandals and robes and Jewish society was vastly different from our modern world. Depicted in the musical you have a people who were beaten down due to years of Roman rule, laboring under the heels of both the legionnaire a corrupt priest cast. The Hebrews are a nation of former slaves driven and kicked around their blistering desert home for thousands of years. The world Jesus knew is nothing like the world we know and understand today. What did the people of Jesus’s time understand? They understood sacrifice, they understoond suffering, and they understood force.

Ever heard the term scapegoat? It actually originated in the Bible (or perhaps predated it) a scapegoat is an animal (usually a goat) which was lead to a certain sacrificial area, and had the sins of those making the sacrifice placed upon it in order to absolve them. The ancient Hebrews understood this sort of sacrifice, the scapegoat and the burnt offering were an essential part of Hebrew culture..which brings us to Jesus and the prophecy which predated him:

“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken…He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer…For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

In this story, Jesus, is the sacrificial lamb, as we all have been told his suffering and death on the cross is the absolution for our sins, but what does that mean? What is the psychology underlying the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth?

Imagine a people, a slave-race, a desperate race beaten down for centuries upon end by whichever tribe or nation felt like fucking with them at the time: Egyptians, Hittites, the hostile environment of a desert, and finally the crushing boot of the Romans, the greatest empire the world had ever seen coming down upon their heads, killing their men, ****** their women, subverting their economy. These were a people driven to the end, to the brink, this is a desperate nation, and in desperate times comes hope: a prophecy, originating from their ruling priest cast: “Do not despair” it says “Do not lose hope, a champion will come, a hero who knows your lot, who has felt your pain…I baptized you in water He shall baptize you in fire…a man, a god, who will rescue the Hebrew nation, a savior who will take on our suffering and prove us righteous in the face of our oppressors”.

Makes you twitch doesn’t it? It’s dynamite stuff. Imagine what this sounds like coming from a holy man during a time where the concept of indoor plumbing would blow your minds. It may have been said in passing, it may have been said in a moment of despair, it may have been calculate, it doesn’t matter, the effect is the same: a Superman is coming to save you and prove you right. Can you imagine how a person from that people, from that time would react to that? How hard they would search for this savior?

Enter Jesus of Nazareth, not from the house of David (as the prophecy implied) but good enough, charismatic, caring, intelligent beyond what they can see, in fact reinforced by their desperate lot, a gifted rabbi, great man beyond what they can understand further bolstered by their own expectations, a man of the people gifted and preaching liberation and salvation from sin, from the Romans, who cares if he was really divine? He’s saying all the right things, he’s telling these people what they need to hear in order to survive. He’s making their lives better, what’s the harm in that? He speaks of their kingdom, of their homeland, of the next life in which the indignities they have suffered PALE in comparison to the grace they will receive…and the masses embrace him for it.

[Despanan]

But here is where it gets ugly. The fever dream of liberation eclipses Jesus the man, Jesus the Idea becomes more than any man, any reformer can ever hope to be: the desperate yearning masses project every virtue, every dream, every hope for a better life for themselves, for their nation upon one man. One small, mortal, fallible man becomes the living embodiment of deliverance…and after that everything is set in motion.

Jesus Christ Superstar begins after all of this, of course, it begins with a busload of neo-hippies appearing in the desert, getting off their bus, putting on their costumes, and preparing for a pageant. Judas sees this, in part, he sees what is happening, and he believes it can be averted, Jesus himself, is not so naïve. Throughout the film Jesus is petulant, angry, frustrate, he continually asserts that they (his apostles) do not understand. Judas tries to dissuade him from the path, but Jesus will have none of it, not because Jesus really believes in his own divinity (though he may have an inkling of this delusion) but because there’s no turning back, between the truth and what people need to believe, his death is required. It is inevitable, that Jesus die, horribly like any other sacrifice Jesus has been lead to this; and like the scapegoat he will bray, he will bleed, and he will die for a nation of people on the edge of a fruitless revolution: in the face of an inevitable defeat at the hands of the Romans, the sacrifice of Jesus allows their culture to endure indignity after indignity. Jesus has become the embodiment of their salvation.

“Forgive them father they, know not what they do” “Take this all of you and eat it, it is my body, which shall be given up for you” Like the people in the play, those involved in Jesus’s death are play-actors, swept up in the ecstasy of belief: they have found their savior, they have found the personification of the hopes, and dreams, and dignity of their nation, and they have killed him before he can disappoint them. His “sacrifice” enables them to endure, enables their culture to remain relevant in the face of annihilation. They have built their god, they have raised him, and they have slaughtered him forever cementing his power in the minds of men: they have, through insane, inhuman hysteria, given birth to a legend…here is a man who truly died for them, who died for their nation, who died for their dignity, who died for their liberation and solidarity. It was inevitable, had he been Jesus of Nazareth or Bozo the Clown they would have their Messiah, and there was nothing Jesus, or Judas, or Pilate, or God Himself could have done about it: it was Preordained….not supernaturally, but psychologically. These people needed to believe.

At the end of Jesus Christ Superstar, the players pack up their props and costumes, and get back on the bus, all but Jesus are seen, implying humorously that they have gone out into the desert and murdered an innocent man to serve their story. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED. Jesus DIED for them. He DIED for their narrative, and centuries later (after Constantine found the story a useful political tool) he DIED for us. Jesus died for a story—the greatest story ever told. There is no difference between this story, and every other sordid account of human sacrifice throughout history, except that this was played out on a national level and it caught on.

Obviously, SUPERSTAR is fiction, we don’t know if the real-life Jesus Christ was aware of his fate, or if he embraced it in a fit of egotistic madness. In the story it is clear that he is dammed from the start, no matter what path he takes, it ends in blood, either a doomed revolution, or his martyrdom as a liar or a Messiah. The Jesus of Superstar has the presence of mind to realize this, and guides his death in the most positive direction he perceives, but in the end, it’s not the Romans that kill Jesus, or even the Jews, it is the narrative itself—Jesus suffered and died for us but not in the way we have been taught, He dies, not for our sins, but for an idea.

God forgive us, we know not what we do.

[Versus]

I'm way too drunk for me reading comprehension to be there, yet. Now YOU will stand the fuck by.

[Saya]

I didn't cum. False advertising!

[Versus]

DO you see? THAT'S easy to understand.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

I didn't cum. False advertising!

I'll see if I can throw in something a bout Gender in the next draft.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Wow, pretty damn good Desp. I'll have to watch the movie, but you stated a lot of things I haven't really thought of. It reminds me of Humaine's statement, that he doesn't necessarily believe in Jesus, but his ideologies. Still a rather dangerous belief, as with any religion I am coming to realize, but at least now I actually feel something for the story of Jesus.

[Despanan]

It's definitely helped my perception of Jesus to see him as a victim, as opposed to a charlatan or a superman, and it's also made ignoring religious nuts a little easier.

When you understand what was probably going on subconsciously with these people, you realize just how important some stories are. The fact that the players are all mostly unaware of what's going on really emphasizes the sad tragedy of the situation, and it helps me to realize just how humans go about building gods for themselves and psychologically "proving" their faith.

The Christ Mythos is by no means unique, the Jews produced messiahs by the dozens back then, and even that's not something that's particularly unique to their culture: For instance Tecumseh could easily be seen as some sort of Native-American Messianic Archetype, all the tropes are there: his birth was heralded by a star, he championed a beat-down people, he displayed supernatural powers, he was betrayed, he died for others, and it's prophecized that he will return and save his people in their darkest hour.

People need something to believe in, and if they're pushed hard enough, we're willing to do anything to get it.

[Alan]

Honestly I don't understand the point. Explain me what your intent is, or throw in a couple of "proletariat" and "Karl Marx said..." in it.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

My only critique of the essay is that I think he's trying to zoom in on the "playacting" and the behavior more than the political turmoil for the Jews at the time. I don't think he's intending to make this an indictment on religion itself, but I sort of wish he would focus a bit more on the historical situations at the time and how those situations would motivate a desperate and primitive culture to fever dreams of a messiah.

John the Baptist had mentioned that there would be a man who would come along and move the people. Is he spouting prophecy or was he at the time, as a religious and social leader, giving an angry and desperate people an idea to latch on to in order to quell the flames of war and revolution under the boot of their oppressors? Was John trying to save lives by giving people something to believe in? And did that idea crystallize within the consensus of the people then, laying the seeds of their own self fulfilling prophecy? The messiah never came. The people MADE an icon out of a radical man who came from a rabbi caste. Not just a ruling caste, but a HOLY and religious caste. They had the keys to the spirituality of "Israel". These people would have expected the messiah to come from the rabbis.

I think there's some parallels to this with how we elect our American leaders. We believe they will save us. I think Jesus understood this psychology more than the bible leads us to believe.

1) If I'm reading you right, I think you're getting ALOT of your facts wrong. Jesus was the son of a carpenter. He didn't come from a rabbi cast.

2) I'm not as interested in the political turmoil of a bunch of bronze-age desert dwellers, as I am in how what happened to Christ relates to human psychology and behavior.

There certainly was a great deal of political turmoil at the time, and that lead to the need to find a messiah to believe in, but it doesn't matter WHY John the Baptist and those before him chose to make the prophecy, because the prophecy itself needed to happen. Focusing on the prophets motivations (or really anyone's conscious motivations) is fruitless, as it's impossible to know and hints at a level of deliberate design that I'm not comfortable with.

I highly doubt anyone involved had even an inkling of what was happening on the conscious level. They were just caught up in a religious revival that they hoped would turn into a revolution. The Pharisees were trying keep a hold on their power and prevent and uprising that would cause a roman crackdown. The Romans were trying to keep the peace. That's really all we can reasonably suppose. It's the ritual and story that their behavior unintentionally created that I find most compelling.

If you want to study revolutions, there are much more recent and relevant revolutions to observe. I'm more interested in the process by which humans create gods.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Desert-dwellers. You know, you can't really dismiss the people and the situation with the story of Jesus as ammunition to talk about god crafting. You'd also have to touch more on the practice with the Norse people sacrificing people to create Odin and is that actually the same thing and why? Same goes for the Mayans. Was it all really just a human sacrifice ritual or is the story of Jesus a little different compared to a casual Norse slaughtering of a Native American?

Well, something not to forget is that Jesus wasn't the only nor original archetype savior. Horus of Egyptian mythology is almost an exact replica of Jesus. The only real difference between the two is the crucifixion.

[Ben Lahnger]

Fascinating stuff and nicely stated - it makes me want to watch the movie with the historical context and overview of this essay in mind.

If you choose to do a revision, as a small point you might choose to add if you like, here's this; whenever I'm talking about how the human need for explanation, belief and purpose drives the invention of religions, I make mention of Cargo Cults as a simple physical example of people extrapolating mystical explanations for non-mystical things because they have that need. Or not - your point is pretty well made.

[ssj_goku]

Jesus is REAL.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

Well, something not to forget is that Jesus wasn't the only nor original archetype savior. Horus of Egyptian mythology is almost an exact replica of Jesus. The only real difference between the two is the crucifixion.

There are some pretty big differences between Christ and Horus. For one thing Motherfucker has a bird for a head. Also: He ripped off one of Set's BALLS and got his eye pulled out. (I don't recall pirate Christ de-nutting anyone) He was also the product of his mother fucking a dismembered corpse with a clay penis.

Also: he didn't die and come back, nor did he take on the "sins" of others.

Mythological speaking, they really don't have anything in common other than Horus occasionally being called "Savior" due to his association with Shed.

There are plenty of deities who have a similar story to Christ, but predate him (Odin springs to mind) but Horus isn't one of them.

[Murder.Of.Crows]

I don't disagree that they have their differences, but I thought he did die and came back resurrected 3 days after his death. I also wasn't saying that they are necessarily the same guy, but the similarities that do exist are still plentiful and uncanny. I merely meant to suggest that the creation of Christ may have had elements borrowed from Egyptian mythology.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Murder.Of.Crows

I don't disagree that they have their differences, but I thought he did die and came back resurrected 3 days after his death. I also wasn't saying that they are necessarily the same guy, but the similarities that do exist are still plentiful and uncanny. I merely meant to suggest that the creation of Christ may have had elements borrowed from Egyptian mythology.

Horus never died and came back, that's his father Osiris, who was back for just long enough to pop a clay boner and drop Horus in Isis's belly.

Did you watch Zeitgeist or something?

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Yeah, I'm trying to find references, and all I can find is one site and the movie "Religulous". The site reference is http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm however, aside for the movie, I can't find anything anywhere else. I may be incredibly wrong. Which would be pretty damn embarrassing.

[Saya]

You are incredibly wrong, MoC, and I'm hyperventilating.

And I have to email religioustolerance.org now. I used to love that site, damn.

Basically what I can tell you is that some crackpot wrote a book on how similar Horus and Jesus were, and its all fucking poppycock, and now there's several crackpots writing books and their only resources are the other crackpots. It has no basis in actual Egyptology. I read the book The Pagan Christ which rt links too, and it must have been the most poorly researched book I ever read. This has a good overview on why its stupid, and it applies to all other sources:

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/...ates/040623was

People believe it because if it was in a fucking book with footnotes, it MUST be true, right?

[Murder.Of.Crows]

Well, it makes me feel a bit better to get something straightened out, but damn do I feel stupid. I really shouldn't get used to doing things half ass. Well, thanks for the info Saya. I was starting to get really worried, since I couldn't find fucking anything regarding details on Horus' life for the exception of that. I feel... dumb.

[Saya]

Oh, you wouldn't be the first person who believed it and I know lots of otherwise smart people who I had to school. Its being presented as legit in a lot of places and I understand not everyone has the time to research the info, it just pisses me off that something can be so utterly wrong, something so easily disputed by a fact check, is being presented as gospel. If you make a fucking documentary or write a book, it should be your responsibility to be open and transparent and do some fucking fact check. GAH.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'll see if I can throw in something a bout Gender in the next draft.

Its not that. Its not that hard to make me cream, really.

I like Jesus Christ Superstar because it brought clarity to the politics of the persecution of Jesus. Judas wasn't a bad person, hell even the Pharisee's stance is understandable. I mean, if you could save everybody from brutal war by killing one person, a lot of people would agree to kill the one. I think there was controversy when it first came out, it was accused of portraying the Jews in a bad light but honestly I thought the Jews were pretty damn sympathetic.

Did they need hope? Yeah, but not everyone converted, it was a pretty small religion at first. Early believers thought he would come back in their life time, and he didn't, and for many people that was enough to say it obviously wasn't true. Its hard to say if he had to die, since Christianity is kinda hung up on that point, so if he had lived it would have turned out completely different. But the thing is that early Christians believed that Christ would come back in their life time, that the end was nigh. Jesus wasn't going to overthrow the Romans. The world would end and they'd all go to the Kingdom of God, so who cares about politics? In fact if anything there was an attempt to soothe things over with the Romans, with Jesus performing miracles for gentiles and those who dealt with them (tax collectors and prostitutes, believed to be unclean because of their association) and Paul saying its fine to marry them, which wasn't exactly kosher at the time. I think Christianity owes it success to the conversion of the Romans, which changed it into something completely different, and helped it survive. I wonder if it would be around at all today if it weren't for that. We went from a hippie dippy doomsday cult to a religion of imperialism, after all.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Its not that hard to make me cream, really.

Slut.

I like Jesus Christ Superstar because it brought clarity to the politics of the persecution of Jesus. Judas wasn't a bad person, hell even the Pharisee's stance is understandable. I mean, if you could save everybody from brutal war by killing one person, a lot of people would agree to kill the one. I think there was controversy when it first came out, it was accused of portraying the Jews in a bad light but honestly I thought the Jews were pretty damn sympathetic.

Pretty much everyone was sympathetic (except maybe Herod, but you can't really HATE the guy, his song is just too much fun.) The Pharisees are clearly corrupt and manipulative, but yeah, they have a valid point: a revolt would be fruitless.

Did they need hope? Yeah, but not everyone converted, it was a pretty small religion at first.

That's not the point, there were enough in his cult to worry the Pharisees. This wasn't just him and twelve guys, it was kind of a big deal.

Its hard to say if he had to die, since Christianity is kinda hung up on that point, so if he had lived it would have turned out completely different. But the thing is that early Christians believed that Christ would come back in their life time, that the end was nigh. Jesus wasn't going to overthrow the Romans. The world would end and they'd all go to the Kingdom of God, so who cares about politics?

It's pretty obvious he was doomed from the start. The prophecy said that the messiah would die, and Jesus's death made him immortal, it made him into an idea. If he had lived? Ehh, I think things would've come to a head and calmed down. Jesus clearly was not interested in leading a secular revolution, so I think allot of his more militant followers would have abandoned him after a while.

This is a culture in which sacrifice was an ingrained part of their zeitgeist. If you look at the subtext of the story, Jesus is a presumed virgin, he is lauded with praise and annointed, and then he's taken up to a mountain and killed. You see this pattern over and over again in nearly every primitive culture: The Norse did it, the Mayans did it, the Hebrews did it, The Greeks, the list goes on.

Sacrifice is something which is ingrained into the human mind and forever associated with the religious impulse. What do most religions do? The give you a list of things to sacrifice in your daily life, and rituals to give those sacrifices meaning. Lent, Ramadan, Kosher Jews, Hindus who can't eat beef, Muslims who can't eat pork, Mormons who can't imbibe alcohol or caffeine, Buddhist who can't eat meat, there are plenty of conscious factors which play into their decisions, but at their core, the subtext of these behaviors is one of ritualistic sacrifice.

Religion works like this: You give something up, you gain spiritual power. The more precious the sacrifice is to the sacrificer, the more emotional the reaction is in their mind, and therefore greater amounts of spiritual power are generated. Why do you think it was so important for Mary to be a virgin? Or for Jesus to be celibate? Yes in Mary's case this adds supernatural ethos, and the culture was somewhat prudish to say the least, but even in orgy-oriented cultures you see the power of virginity and celibacy: (for instance, Rome's Vestal Virgins)

When someone is at the end of their rope and they pray to God, what is the Bargaining stage of grief? They promise to give something up. (This includes promises to devote your life to God, because you're giving up your own freedom and ambitions in the trade)

One of the most spiritually/psychologically powerful sacrifices is that of a human life, consider the Sokushinbutsu monks who literally starved themselves in such a way that their bodies would mummify and they would be seen as attaining Buddah-hood, or the Medicine King in the 23rd Lotus Sutra who's account of self-immolation served as the example for Vietnamese monk's own self-immolation in the 60's.

This impulse and emotional response is hard-coded into our brains...What's the most powerful sacrifice? One that's actually forbidden:

"We have no law to put a man to death"

The Pharisees COULDN'T kill Jesus, they had to force the Romans to do it. Jesus had to die, so that he could be a God. If he hadn't died, people would've eventually come to their senses and treated him as a teacher and a philosopher, but back then, they didn't NEED a teacher or a philosopher, they had plenty of those in the Rabbi class. They needed a God.

Motherfucker had to die.

In fact if anything there was an attempt to soothe things over with the Romans, with Jesus performing miracles for gentiles and those who dealt with them (tax collectors and prostitutes, believed to be unclean because of their association) and Paul saying its fine to marry them, which wasn't exactly kosher at the time. I think Christianity owes it success to the conversion of the Romans, which changed it into something completely different, and helped it survive. I wonder if it would be around at all today if it weren't for that. We went from a hippie dippy doomsday cult to a religion of imperialism, after all.

I don't dispute this. If Christianity hadn't caught on with the Romans, it probably would've died out, however I think the reason it was even able to catch on and become the religious power that it is today was the sheer spiritual power generated by this event, it's the greatest story ever told, it's the ultimate sacrifice.

You really can't argue with the iconography of Christian Mythology: Jesus on the cross, incense, motherfuckers in robes and silly hats, cosmic struggles, and a God who's so holy his presence alone will literally blink puny unclean humans out of existence. It's knockout stuff, and a convenient political tool as it stresses forbearance and submission to authority.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It's pretty obvious he was doomed from the start. The prophecy said that the messiah would die, and Jesus's death made him immortal, it made him into an idea. If he had lived? Ehh, I think things would've come to a head and calmed down. Jesus clearly was not interested in leading a secular revolution, so I think allot of his more militant followers would have abandoned him after a while.

What prophecy says the messiah dies? If we're sticking to the Hebrew ideas of the messiah I can't find any reference to death and resurrection. The riding on the donkey was there, but that was kinda Jesus going "YEAH BITCHES" to the Pharisees. And he still failed miserably to restore poor doomed Jerusalem.

This is a culture in which sacrifice was an ingrained part of their zeitgeist. If you look at the subtext of the story, Jesus is a presumed virgin, he is lauded with praise and annointed, and then he's taken up to a mountain and killed. You see this pattern over and over again in nearly every primitive culture: The Norse did it, the Mayans did it, the Hebrews did it, The Greeks, the list goes on.

Heh, Jesus Christ Superstar is pretty iffy on his relationship with Mary Magdalene, and from what we know of apocryphal texts its not far of a stretch to think that early believers at least knew he had a very close relationship to Mary Magdalene.

Sacrifice is something which is ingrained into the human mind and forever associated with the religious impulse. What do most religions do? The give you a list of things to sacrifice in your daily life, and rituals to give those sacrifices meaning. Lent, Ramadan, Kosher Jews, Hindus who can't eat beef, Muslims who can't eat pork, Mormons who can't imbibe alcohol or caffeine, Buddhist who can't eat meat, there are plenty of conscious factors which play into their decisions, but at their core, the subtext of these behaviors is one of ritualistic sacrifice.

Religion works like this: You give something up, you gain spiritual power. The more precious the sacrifice is to the sacrificer, the more emotional the reaction is in their mind, and therefore greater amounts of spiritual power are generated. Why do you think it was so important for Mary to be a virgin? Or for Jesus to be celibate? Yes in Mary's case this adds supernatural ethos, and the culture was somewhat prudish to say the least, but even in orgy-oriented cultures you see the power of virginity and celibacy: (for instance, Rome's Vestal Virgins)

When someone is at the end of their rope and they pray to God, what is the Bargaining stage of grief? They promise to give something up. (This includes promises to devote your life to God, because you're giving up your own freedom and ambitions in the trade)

Sort of. Buddha advocated the middle way, no indulgence but no extreme sacrifices. There are sects that didn't listen to him in that regard, true. And there's always been hedonistic religions as well, today we have neotantra, Raelians, actually as far as I can think New Age religions don't really spend a whole lot of time around sacrifice of any significance, from what we know of the cult of Dionysus they were a pretty wild bunch. There is usually a code to follow, and if you follow the code god will love you/you'll be happy/you'll have powers, but that code might not necessarily be sacrificial, I'd say in Zen the reply would be everyone has buddha nature anyway, so there's nothing to gain and nothing to sacrifice.

When it comes to Mary, the reason why she was chosen was because her conception was the immaculate conception, she alone in the entire world was born without original sin. Her virginity was iconic, yes, it wouldn't be the only virgin birth story in the world, and its kinda iffy because of the word used in prophecy as to whether that was a condition for messiah birth at all. I think the idea of miracle birth is more universal than virgin birth, such as the six tusked elephant (Indra) entering Maya's side, impregnating her with Buddha, or even Isis fucking dead Osiris. While in bird form.

Absolutely not disputing sacrifice isn't almost universal, but not what religion is solely all about. There's the promise of hope, and a way to find that hope that might not necessarily require sacrifice.

And when it comes to dietary practices I wouldn't label that sacrifice at all. Cows are sacred in Hinduism, its sacrilegious to hurt them. Vegetarianism in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism focuses more on being kind to others and ahimsa, and you refuse to sacrifice others for yourself. Its not "I'll gain powers or favor by doing this", its "I shouldn't do this because this is harmful to others." Like I wouldn't label not punching someone in the face a sacrifice. From a sober point of view, indulgent drinking is sacrificing your liver for instant gratification, after all, its only from the indulger's point of view that something is sacrifices in abstaining from things that aren't necessary. In terms of kosher and halal, some of the rules do focus on this, that animals are to be killed as humanely as possible, as well as the belief that some foods can never be clean, like pork. Which reminds me of the "pigs are filthy animals" speech from Pulp Fiction more so than "We're sacrificing so much by not eating this one kind of meat!"

One of the most spiritually/psychologically powerful sacrifices is that of a human life, consider the Sokushinbutsu monks who literally starved themselves in such a way that their bodies would mummify and they would be seen as attaining Buddah-hood, or the Medicine King in the 23rd Lotus Sutra who's account of self-immolation served as the example for Vietnamese monk's own self-immolation in the 60's.

This impulse and emotional response is hard-coded into our brains...What's the most powerful sacrifice? One that's actually forbidden:

"We have no law to put a man to death"

The Pharisees COULDN'T kill Jesus, they had to force the Romans to do it. Jesus had to die, so that he could be a God. If he hadn't died, people would've eventually come to their senses and treated him as a teacher and a philosopher, but back then, they didn't NEED a teacher or a philosopher, they had plenty of those in the Rabbi class. They needed a God.

Motherfucker had to die.

Jesus's popularity at the time was for two reasons, he claimed to be the Messiah and the end was coming, so there was hope. Hope that they will be free in their lifetime.

But he also brought spirituality to those who were outcast and unclean, to the whores, to the lepers, to the tax collectors. These people were unclean and had no place for the purity obsessed Pharisees. I think the inclusiveness of Jesus was probably what made it so attractive back then, the reassurance that as you are, you're good enough for God's love. He tried to destroy the idea of caste, and he was pretty subversive to authority.

I don't dispute this. If Christianity hadn't caught on with the Romans, it probably would've died out, however I think the reason it was even able to catch on and become the religious power that it is today was the sheer spiritual power generated by this event, it's the greatest story ever told, it's the ultimate sacrifice.

You really can't argue with the iconography of Christian Mythology: Jesus on the cross, incense, motherfuckers in robes and silly hats, cosmic struggles, and a God who's so holy his presence alone will literally blink puny unclean humans out of existence. It's knockout stuff, and a convenient political tool as it stresses forbearance and submission to authority.

Oh, I can't argue that Christianity has a boner for Jesus's sacrifice, but I'm more looking at how it was viewed at the time, before his death and immediately after.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

What prophecy says the messiah dies? If we're sticking to the Hebrew ideas of the messiah I can't find any reference to death and resurrection. The riding on the donkey was there, but that was kinda Jesus going "YEAH BITCHES" to the Pharisees. And he still failed miserably to restore poor doomed Jerusalem.

Originally Posted by Isiah 53:7-11

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; [b]for the transgression of my people he was stricken He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light [of life] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

It's a common interpretation that this is a prophecy of the Messiah.

Heh, Jesus Christ Superstar is pretty iffy on his relationship with Mary Magdalene, and from what we know of apocryphal texts its not far of a stretch to think that early believers at least knew he had a very close relationship to Mary Magdalene.

Yeah, but that's still Heresy today.

Sort of. Buddha advocated the middle way, no indulgence but no extreme sacrifices.

Sort of. Freeding your living flesh to others seems pretty extreme As is sitting under a Bohdi tree in meditation for 49 days

There are sects that didn't listen to him in that regard, true. And there's always been hedonistic religions as well...New Age religions don't really spend a whole lot of time around sacrifice of any significance...There is usually a code to follow, and if you follow the code god will love you/you'll be happy/you'll have powers

Following a code is in itself sacrificial. Certainly not to the degree of actually destroying something, but by ascribing to a code you are subverting your own natural actions. If you add a ritual to it (like crossing yourself) this strengthens the perceived spiritual power of the behavior.

I'd say in Zen the reply would be everyone has Buddha nature anyway, so there's nothing to gain and nothing to sacrifice.

Again, Zen is fairly odd, in terms of religion. Still the meditation itself are sacrifices, and the meditation techniques, Such as imagining your body as glowing light, breathing in the corruption and taking it into the core of your heart, and expelling it as light for instance. (Magical air purifier FTW!)

When it comes to Mary, the reason why she was chosen was because her conception was the immaculate conception...I think the idea of miracle birth is more universal than virgin birth

I agree.

Absolutely not disputing sacrifice isn't almost universal, but not what religion is solely all about. There's the promise of hope, and a way to find that hope that might not necessarily require sacrifice.

Nothing in human behavior is solely about anything, we're complex creatures, but the idea of sacrifice and the religious impulse is hard-coded into our brain by evolution. (I'll explain why at the end of this post).

Its not "I'll gain powers or favor by doing this", its "I shouldn't do this because this is harmful to others."

On the conscious level, you're right it's about all of these things, but on the subconscious level, it's still sacrifice.

Let me explain why we have the emotional reaction that we do to Self/religious sacrifice:

Humanity is a social animal, which began by living in nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes. This was a hard life, and we depended directly on the tribe for survival. This is why we have a psychological aversion to gluttony and indulgence: Those who's brains allowed them to blatantly monopolize resources alienated themselves from the tribe, and were killed, while those who put the needs of the whole on-par with, or above their own survived.

Basically, you kill an animal, and if you psychologically can forbear to devour it all and instead share it with others, the group prospers and you survive to mate. The communities made up of those who can sacrifice their own needs and wants for the greater good prospered, while the "Chaotic Evil" communities were culled by infighting and predators.

The sacrificial impulse is simply the "forbearance/Sharing" instinct miss-firing. Instead of saving this animal for your fellow men or your leader, or mate (which is logical), you saved it for the GODS. No one ate it because of the inherited psychology which caused religious levels of ecstasy to accompany the act, and no one blamed or killed the sacrificers because of the awe the rituals inspired in the pattern-seeking part of their brain.

You'd think this would lead to death, as the behavior is essentially wasting food, but here's the thing: the psychology of sacrifice had another side-effect: it brought the community closer together. The tribes that did this prospered because they shared the united purpose and communal urge brought on by their sacrificial psychology. This type of brain chemistry was nurtured and bread into us by the hand of evolution.

Over the years, our sacrifices became more sopisticated, and rationalizations appeared to account for the behavior, but deep down the irrational, instinctual animal inside us NEEDS this, and responds to sacrifice and forbearance and ritual simply because of its BREEDING.

When you strip away the myth and romanticism, it all makes perfect sense. This behavior is inevitable.

"If you strip away the myth,
from the man,
you'll see where we all,
soon will be."

-Judas, Jesus Christ Superstar

Jesus's popularity at the time was for two reasons, he claimed to be the Messiah and the end was coming, so there was hope. Hope that they will be free in their lifetime.

Actually, he never directly claimed to be the Messiah. In fact he said the opposite: that he was the Son of Man.

True, it gets a little muddied because of that whole "none come to the father except through me" but as HP pointed out, the guy spoke in evasive parables. It was the reaction of his followers and the Parisees that cemented him as the Messiah.

Plus there were TONS of other Messiahs, and reformers what made Jesus so different? The Sacrifice. The Story.

But he also brought spirituality to those who were outcast and unclean, to the whores, to the lepers, to the tax collectors. These people were unclean and had no place for the purity obsessed Pharisees. I think the inclusiveness of Jesus was probably what made it so attractive back then, the reassurance that as you are, you're good enough for God's love. He tried to destroy the idea of caste, and he was pretty subversive to authority.

I agree, but after his death that's easily retconned: you submit to God, not the earthly authorities, but guess who knows what God wants you to do? Why the earthly authorities that god put to rule over you of course!

It's the best of both worlds. By killing Jesus they made him immortal, similar to John Lenon and Kurt Cobain, now that they're dead we won't ever have to see them go Charlie Sheen on us, and their works at that time will live on forever.

You die a hero, or see yourself live long enough to become a villain. Jesus took it one step further, the circumstances of his death allowed him to go out as an immortal God.

Oh, I can't argue that Christianity has a boner for Jesus's sacrifice, but I'm more looking at how it was viewed at the time, before his death and immediately after.

We can't really know for sure how it was viewed at the time. It may have been just another cult-leader's death, or another revolution prematurely put down. Still it clearly resonated with Jewish culture, and parallel their current practices while confirming their mythology quite clearly.

In hindsight, It's not a surprise that it caught on, nor that it stood out against all the other Messiah claimants.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Something about the messiah being led like a lamb to the slaughter? But this still helps the thesis. Jesus was one hell of a politician.

The interpretation of Isiah 53 in Judaism is that the lamb to the slaughter is Israel as a people, not a person. Its kinda common throughout the text for Israel to be personified. Still, when looking for validation that IT WAS PLANNED ALL ALONG!!! people will twist it around to suit their needs. But what I'm getting at there that that prophecy was made in retrospect, no one expected the messiah to die.

The middle way is just moderation, a sacrifice of our extreme tendencies. A sacrifice is simply giving something up. The middle way is inherently unnatural to basic human behavior. If I were to be like you, I'd have to sacrifice my idea that it's okay to be extreme about the right things.

Yeah, I remember that time I sacrificed being poor to be rich. Shit, what a sacrifice that was.

I think this was pretty much the people projecting the spiritual prophecy onto this man in a time of desperation.

Word.

Every religion in one way or another demands you bend to an arbitrary code. If you have to change your behavior in any way to follow this code, it's a sacrifice. Other than that, you'd just be arguing extremes.



Actually, no. Sacrifice isn't always an extreme. Anything we do that is contrary to our instinctual animal behavior is inherently a sacrifice to some degree. the importance of that change is entirely arbitrary. In fact, I'd gesture that those that go into the practice of abstaining from food consumption is only doing it mostly through indoctrination now. It's not exactly a spiritual experience anymore, it's just HOW you're supposed to practice that religion.

The confusion here is that you're supposing that these people literally gain spiritual/supernatural favor by doing a sacrifice. It's not divine in the slightest, it's just a behavior. Much like an intellectual misfire. The divine claims are simply a side effect. Simply, we sacrifice parts of ourselves for an idea to give that idea a level of importance it probably doesn't reasonably deserve.

I just can't see using the word "sacrifice" applied to giving anything up. If it takes effort, if its painful, if you're giving up something valuable and precious, yes, but a simple change in behavior can simply be a change in behavior. "Sacrifice" is too loaded a word.

I almost agree. I'm not so sure if Jesus ever claimed to be a messiah. However, I could see how he may have claimed to be a leader of the people. He was probably an egalitarian religious reformer that caused a culture steeped in oppressive religious theocracy to go fucking ballistic.

In the Bible he did claim to be the messiah, but obviously we need to take that with a huge grain of salt. Its the closest we got to the truth, sadly, unless someday we uncover his diary.