What the Martyrdom of Jesus Was Really About

(Revised 7-4-2008)

I fully understand why many Christians believe in traditional doctrine and dogma, and I fully understand that most Christians are good people who understand divine intent and try to abide by the golden rule.

The trouble is, misguided Christians do not, and part of the reason for that is their misguided beliefs about the purpose and meaning of the crucifixion and martyrdom of the Christ Jesus.

The crucifixion and martyrdom of Jesus was not really about what many have been led to believe, because Jesus did not really sacrifice himself solely "for your sins," and obviously he did not "take away the sins of the world," as many Christians claim. In fact, the claim that he did was based on erroneous interpretation and misunderstanding of Judaic Hebrew Scriptures.

Granted, the soul of Jesus was "an offering for sin," which is consistent with what the prophet Isaiah actually wrote. But, it was an offering, not a cure, and the offering was given as an example and not as an intercession. There was a more reasonable, more sensible reason for the sacrifice and martyrdom of Jesus. It was to set a perfect example as a loving, compassionate, tolerant, forgiving pacifist.

After all, Jesus willingly allowed himself to be arrested, and when Peter picked up a sword to try to save Jesus, he told him to put it down. He wanted to demonstrate that it is far better to allow the "beast" (the warlord ruler) to kill you, than to stoop to his level by living by the sword. That is why during his years of teaching he had repeatedly said that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword, and that we should love even our enemy and not retaliate even when attacked.

In fact, Jesus martyred himself to culminate his teachings around universal love, tolerance, forgiveness, and pacifism. That was the main reason. And really, that's what true martyrdom is all about, in the spiritual sense of the word. It's about willingly and passively giving up your life without resisting or fighting your killer, especially if and when your killer is a corrupt and tyrannical ruling government, or any other organized group that uses deadly force. It's about telling the truth and exposing evil, but not resisting of fighting it physically, as Jesus had advised many times in his teaching. That’s why Jesus was a non-violent revolutionary and a true martyr, and it’s why many other martyrs, like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., have done the same thing.

The problem is that many religious people have not understood that, and many still do not understand it. In fact, some have gone so far astray that they think they are martyrs by committing suicide and mass murder of innocent civilians, as spiritually blind and false "Muslim Jihadists" claim. And many religious zealots who claim to be Jews and Christians are not all that much better. Right-wing Israeli Jews ignore certain parts of the Torah, and right-wing American Christians have been grossly misled because they do not realize that the "New Testament" (NT) of the Christian Bible includes false doctrines of men, parts of which are inconsistent with Judaic "Old Testament" (OT) scriptures, and parts of which are even contradictory and erroneous.

The case in point is that the Christian idea that Jesus "died for our sins" is an erroneous myth based on an inaccurate interpretation of the OT, and some of what we now read in the NT is not an accurate reflection of the actual teachings and intent of the Christ Jesus. Whether it was written by the original gospel authors, or whether it is the product of later translators or revisionists, some of it is not an accurate portrayal of the actual birth, life, teachings and intent of Jesus.

That should not surprise any reasonable and thoughtful person, especially when we consider the stories in the original gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus, after being told over and over again for many years by word of mouth. In fact, most scholars conclude that the original first gospel, called the Book of Mark, was written about 65 years after the death of Jesus, and the last, John's Book of Revelation, was written about 95 years after the death of Jesus. The others were written at times in between, and they were all written to record the stories that had been told by word of mouth over and over again for a very long time. Some scholars even conclude that none of them were written by those who actually knew Jesus, but had only heard the stories that had been passed down over the years and decades after Jesus died. During all that time the stories were surely embellished to try to enhance the "title," status and authority of Jesus, and one way that was done was to claim that Jesus fulfilled certain OT prophesies even when he did not.

No one actually knows whether that was done by the original authors of the gospels, or by later revisionists when the Christian Bible as we know it was produced, which was in the 4th Century when Christianity became the religion of a military empire. After all, none of the original texts were used because at the time only copies of copies and translations were available. But, whenever it was, it caused Christianity to become something different than Jesus had intended. It made idol worshipers of Christians.

Don't get me wrong, though. The NT still contains much of the correct, core teachings of Jesus around universal love, tolerance, forgiveness, and pacifism, and many good Christians have followed and still do follow them. But many have not, particularly since the 4th Century, and some still do not because they prefer to focus on the erroneous doctrines of men to justify their bigotry, intolerance and offensiveness, and even their militarism and imperialism.

The facts and the truth about Jesus need to be told, not to denigrate Jesus, but to set the record straight and glorify him for what he was: a spiritually anointed son of man, a unique and extraordinary servant of God, a sacrificial lamb of God, and the Christ-Avatar for the passing age. And the truth must be known in order to reform Christianity and correct those who claim to do "many wonderful works in the name of the Lord," but do not know God and unwittingly "work iniquity" (do wrong), as Jesus put it.

You see, the mission of the current messenger for the Spirit of truth is to deliver the message in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus, and the truth is that the NT as we know it is not entirely correct in certain instances, especially concerning why Jesus allowed himself to be arrested and crucified.

For example, the claim that Jesus "died for our sins" is made in certain verses in the NT that lean heavily on Isaiah 53:5-8 in the OT, which contains the phrases, "he is wounded for our transgressions," ... "by his stripes we are healed," ... "he shall be brought as a lamb to slaughter" and "you shall make his soul an offering for sin."

Because Isaiah probably did foresee and foretell the son of man named Jesus receiving "stripes" or being whipped and crucified, the assumption and claim by most Christians was that the entire 53^rd chapter of Isaiah spoke of Jesus.

That is, at the very least, questionable. After all, the verses just prior to Isaiah 53:5-8 state: "he has no form nor comeliness" and "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" and "Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." And, the verse following the "offering for sin" passage states: "he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."

None of that speaks of Jesus. After all, his days were not prolonged but cut short at age 33. He was "comely," handsome and well groomed even according to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. He was not despised or rejected of men, not a man of sorrows, and not stricken or afflicted. Therefore, it is highly questionable and even doubtful that Isaiah Chapter 53 speaks totally of Jesus.

As is stated in the pages titled Divided Christians and The Plant of Renown, it is likely that Isaiah 53 speaks somewhat of Jesus but mostly of the current son of man. As I said, Isaiah probably foresaw Jesus becoming a martyr. For Jesus played a very crucial role in the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, not only because of his martyrdom, but also because he and his father Joseph were descendants of King David. He also set the precedent of rejecting the throne as a worldly king, and served only as a teacher.

Moreover, Jesus made many crucial prophecies himself, about the next son of man and messenger for the Spirit of truth.

Like Isaiah, Jesus foresaw the predicament of the next (current) son of man. After all, the current son of man is not considered comely because of his disabling affliction. He is despised by right-wing militant zealots who claim to be Christians or Jews or Muslims. He is also a man of sorrows and well acquainted with grief. And, as both Isaiah and Jesus foresaw, the current son of man suffers many things, after having been stricken and afflicted, and he is indeed rejected by his generation. (See the page on Real Prophecies About the Messenger and Author's Personal Note [which explains the suffering], as well as the other pages I mentioned.)

The trouble is, some of the Christian apostles or later revisionists tended to use anything in the OT that could possibly prove Jesus fulfilled all the Judaic prophecies (or will when he "comes again"). They concocted the idea that "Jesus suffered and died on the cross to take away our sins." The ignored the fact that Isaiah merely wrote that "you shall make his soul an offering for sin." They embellished and exaggerated that, and they probably did that so they could establish Jesus as the culmination and the solution to "Adam and Eve's disobedience." They probably thought it would complete the story.

That is why in the book of John it is written: "Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world" ... "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin," and "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son." None of that makes any sense, and it's no wonder. It is simply not true. The sins of the world are worse now than they have ever been, and Jesus was the son of Joseph, as I explained on the page titled The Virgin Birth Story.

The "giving the only begotten son" supposedly refers to Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross, and it refers to the idea that by willingly being crucified on the cross Jesus turned aside the wrath of God, absorbing the punishment due to sinners, securing forgiveness from God for all who trust in him and believe Jesus is "God incarnate" or "God Himself," or the "immaculately conceived, only begotten son of God." It is considered as a settling of accounts in heaven and as a triumphant victory over all the powers of darkness. And those who created and perpetuated that doctrine wanted everyone to believe that the meaning and power of the cross were thus released by Jesus' "resurrection from the dead."

That's why in the letters of Paul it is written: "... if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain ... And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins." And "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

That's why it is written that if we do not believe that Jesus is God and died for our sins, then we are in danger of hell fire and damnation. In other words, it would appear that the writers or later revisionists of the gospels wanted to issue strong warnings about the horrible consequences of sin, but they carried it to the extreme.

That is why the most arrogant and self-righteous Christians will approach people they do not know, as ask: "Have you been saved?" and/or "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" They do not realize how rude and presumptuous that is, and of course they do not realize the main reason why Jesus sacrificed his life and martyred himself. They also do not realize that while Jesus certainly can be called a Lord, he was not the Lord of Lords, not the Lord of Hosts, not the Holy One, and not the Savior, because only God is the Holy One and Savior. Jesus was a servant of God, and a host, who said God "is greater than I" and "only God is good" and worthy of worship.

The most arrogant and self-righteous fundamentalist and evangelical Christians go even further, and if you reject their claim that you must accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, they then threaten you and claim that you cannot receive salvation and are doomed to suffer in hell for eternity. They perpetuate the theocratic doctrine that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages sixteen centuries ago.

Granted, there is some precedent for that concept of God in the OT. Some of the Jewish prophets were very judgmental, threatening and terribly punitive. They wanted to establish that God was "Almighty," and that the enemies of the God of Israel had better beware. Some OT authors even gave the impression that God is an ethereal, omnipotent, all-powerful Superman, contradicting others who understood and wrote that God is not mortal, not a man, nor a son of man, but rather lives in Light and is the Divine Light.

However, the authors of the words we find in the Christian gospels in the Bible did far more than merely follow the tradition set by the most strict and harsh Jewish prophets. The doctrine in them, whether it was written in the original gospels or later, was based on a misunderstanding of what the birth, life and death of Jesus was really about, and on a misunderstanding of what the resurrection of the spirit-soul really is. So, they went much further, claiming that unless we believe and confess that Jesus is God Himself and that he died for our sins to secure our salvation, we cannot be saved from the "wages of sin," which they claimed are "death and eternal damnation in hell."

That is why some Christians believe that the "salvation" idea and the resurrection idea are the most important parts of Christianity, and they believe those ideas are consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures in the OT. That's why they focus on the passage that Paul wrote that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with scriptures" and that after Jesus was crucified "he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

However, Paul (or whoever wrote that), was wrong on both counts, because it was not in accordance with scriptures.

Granted, it can seem like there is at least a little bit of justification in the book of Isaiah for the idea of Jesus "dying for our sins," but that too is at the very least questionable. And there is simply no justification whatsoever for the idea of being "resurrected and raised on the third day according the scriptures." The only thing in the OT even remotely about that is found in Hosea 6:1-2, which states: "After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him."

I think it may be true, however, that the ghost of Jesus did actually appear to his loved ones after he died. Many people believe that can actually happen. My grandmother said she was visited by my Dad's ghost following his death, and I believe her. I believe the ghosts of the recently departed can and do appear to try to comfort those who grieve for them, even though most people who witness it just can't really believe it and usually don't talk about it. I also believe that if Jesus did appear as a ghost before his disciples and loved ones, and if it is true that all of them actually saw him and were filled with the Holy Spirit, it was because Jesus was very special and unique. He was, after all, a self-realized, fully enlightened human being, and such gifted human beings do have mystical powers and can maintain them if they are able to "step aside," be perfectly selfless, and let the Holy Spirit become actuated in the world.

The point is that it is now important that all Christians understand that Jesus was a mortal son of man and his death was just like other men (see the page on The Myth of the Virgin Birth). After he died his spirit-soul was resurrected as all spirit-souls are, leaving the mortal carnal body behind. But his carnal body was apparently taken and buried where it was never found, even though many claim that his burial shroud was found.

Whatever the circumstances were involving his mortal body, the Christ Jesus was indeed "risen" out of his mortal body. His soul and spirit rose to heaven, just as our soul and spirit can if and when we go into the Light of God. The material, carnal, bodily resurrection story is part of the whole overall myth that includes the mythical "virgin" birth and the "second coming" stories.

Admittedly, it's possible and even probable that those stories were well meant, but the myths actually served to justify and enforce the man-made, theocratic, imperial doctrine of preeminence and superiority that led to all the "Christian" imperialism, genocide and colonialism during the last sixteen centuries, and even today causes much conflict and division. And it's finally time that the myths be debunked and exposed for what they are.

As I've said, the fact is that Jesus willingly allowed himself to be arrested and he sacrificed and martyred himself to culminate his teachings around universal love, tolerance, forgiveness, and pacifism. That's it, and it's certainly enough. The truth does not lessen the importance of the Christ, or his teachings.

That's what the crucifixion story is all about: The perfect example of how to deal with the beast-king who lives by the sword. Jesus told the people to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Forgive even your enemy, and live not by the sword but by the truth that will ultimately set us free.

We need to understand the difference between truly and divinely inspired teachings in scripture, and the doctrines of men who were (and are) more interested in patriarchal control and rulership. Granted, they may have been trying to ensure good behavior by promising eternal reward for it, and by threatening eternal damnation for bad behavior. But we must see that for what it is. Most of us reap what we sow in this world, mainly, just as Jesus said. And those who don’t, or who die with hate or anger or guilt or fear in their hearts, usually have to deal with it in a spiritual realm sort of like a "purgatory" (for lack of a better word), until the consciousness of their spirit-soul is opened and expanded and they are free to pass on and up into the Light of God.

We also need to understand that we do not know and cannot know exactly what words in the modern Bible were actually written by the original gospel writers or written later by translators or revisionists, nor can we know if even the original authors accurately reflected what the Christ Jesus actually said. But we can recognize truthful things, because they are resonant and consistent with the universal truths that are at the central core of all religious and spiritual teachings and writings, and they are around and about the golden rule and the universal divine imperative.

Some will deny this truth and call it a lie. But you should examine their motives, and then compare them to the motives of this son of man who serves God and all humanity. The real, literal evidence in scripture makes it quite clear. And thank God, the Spirit of truth has shown us how to see the real truth.