Why is Christ's death considered a sacrifice?

[ManMachine]

Given that it's on topic with my other thread about the reason for the crucifixion, I'll bring this here:


Growing up Christian, the single most resounding things I heard was talk about "Christ's sacrifice". He died on the cross to save our sins. His sacrifice provided our salvation. What great love God showed through this sacrifice.

Now, this is often compared to lots of Old Testament sacrifices, where people had to set one of their goats on fire because God liked how it smelled. This makes sense to be classified as a sacrifice, because the goat herder had one less goat. Regardless of whether or not this goat burning made any sense or was necessary in the strictest sense is beside the point; it was a sacrifice.

So Jesus comes, spreads the good word, pisses off the people in charge, and is summarily executed. But then it's revealed that this death was a sacrifice and it was to atone for our sins. This is also why we don't have to burn goats anymore (does God still like how that smells?). The problem is, three days later, Jesus rose from the dead and eventually went up to heaven. This is constantly reaffirmed in Easter services every year. "He is risen! hallelujah!" and "Our God is a living God!" So, everyone accepts that he's not actually dead. How was that a sacrifice? Sure, he suffered for three days, and I'm sure that wasn't fun, but it was only a sacrifice in the sense that he sacrificed some of his happiness.

To go back to the whole goat thing, if the goat herders were told to immolate one of their goats, and three days later, it arose from the ashes no worse for the wear, it wouldn't be a sacrifice; it would be goat torture. So, did God save our sins by subjecting his son/avatar/himself to torture?

Creepy.

The crucifixion is one of the few independently affirmed historical facts about the historical figure we now know as Jesus. It is mentioned by a number of contemporary non-Christian writers. This fact is as close to universally accepted as anything this old can be.

But, that is as far as it goes. There is nothing about why he was crucified outside the bible. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the man the Romans crucified had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.

A Roman called Mara bar Sarapion wrote to his son sometime between the 1st and 3rd century (exact date unknown) about the unjust persecution of three wise men, included in his list was Socrates, Pythagoras and a man he calls the 'wise king' of the Jews. This non-Christian use of the phrase has led to many scholars concluding that 'king of the Jews' is not a Christian title. Mara also talks about these wise men living on through the wisdom of their teachings and in the specific case of Jesus, not through some kind of resurrection.

It does seem that the concept of 'everlasting life' existed independently of Christianity at the time, but it was a metaphor for the permanence of wisdom rather than the immortality of a deity. As we all know the divinity of Jesus was hotly debated well into the 4th century, the divinity of Jesus was not automatically accepted immediately following his death, it was a slow burning concept that took hundreds of years to permeate the religion and become accepted as Universal Christian doctrine.

The historical Jesus, it seems, was wise, I wonder how horrified he would have been if he'd have known he was going to be turned into a god, had things turned out differently it might have been Socrates or Pythagoras the god-botherers were praying to, who knows?

MM