Christ and such.(was Unusual Plot...)

[Neal_Rick_J at bns.att.com]

      >Actually, I'm going to argue that Christ didn't Ascend as the
      Martyr.  I
      >think he either Ascended as the Messiah, or as the Son of God.
  
      I'm going to disagree with both of you.
       
      I see the Martyr as someone who believes in something strongly
      enough that they will die for it. This fits the Christ image, I'll
      agree, but there is an element of premeditation in his death that
      seems, to me, to take it beyond the normal scope of Martyrdom.
      I'll get to where it takes it in a moment.
       
      As for the Messiah, read as the promised saviour, I'm not sure
      that it was, at that time, enough of a universal ideal to warrant
      an ascension. Both that and the Son of God archetype fit within
      the Judaic tradition that Christ was working in, but that was by
      far the minority in world-view in that time period. Even the
      occupying Romans were polytheistc, with a body of legends dealing
      with the children of gods that were far more widely held to be
      true. This leads me to think that neither of these were successful
      archetypes in that time period.
       
      Coming back to the Martyr, the distinguishing element in the
      Martyr's death is that he is put to death for his beliefs, and
      remains steadfast in them during the death. As I said, this fits
      Christ, but consider: if you take the Bible as the true story of
      Christ, his coming was planned from the very beginning, with his
      death being necessary to the Divine Plan (tm). I see him less as
      the Martyr, and more as the Sacrifice, an offering made to ensure
      the greater good. While this may be a distinction based purely on
      semantics, I see it as being quite a difference. The beliefs of
      the Martyr are the motivating force for their actions, while the
      beliefs of others are the motivating force for the Sacrifice. A
      Martyr may be a sacrifice, and a Sacrifice may be a martyr, but,
      at the root, the death involved comes from a different directive.
       
      Considering the religious history of the period, the idea of a
      Sacrifice was far more prevalent at that time than the idea of the
      Martyr, which means "witness," and came into its most popular
      usage in the early Christian church. I find it easier to accept
      Christ fitting the popular idea of Sacrifice, an idea almost
      ubiquitous in religions of that time, than the Martyr, which
      didn't take on it's current meaning until later, or Messiah or Son
      of God, which don't quite fit the world view of people at that
      time (other than the Jews) very well.
       
      Just the ramblings of an ex-priest.
      Rick Neal