The Death Of Yeshua bar Yosef
The Death Of Yeshua bar Yosef
Or if you prefer, “bin Miriam,” although no way he would have ever been called that in his life, but near as I know “Yeshua bar Yosef” (“Jesus son of Joseph”) was probably how he was most frequently identified in real life in the Aramaic language he mostly operated in, his mother tongue. It has been reported that he knew Hebrew, then strictly a liturgical language, given the reports of him at age 12 discoursing seriously with priests at the temple in Jerusalem. Greek was the lingua franca for business and ultimately the language the New Testament was written in where he was labeled “Iesos Christos,” translated into English as “Jesus Christ.”
When he was crucified, almost certainly the only clearly documented event of his life beyond the Bible, thanks to Josephus, all of the four Gospels have it in super capitalized letters what they put over his head approved of by the local Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, was “KING OF THE JEWS” (all four gospels in the King James version have this in full capital letters as I have written, with variations across them in specifics, but all including this). We do not know which language was put on the sign he carried to Golgotha, but the Gospel of John, who was supposedly an eyewitness, says that this declaration was made in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, curiously none of these the language he or most of the local population actually spoke in their homes.
Here is the hard core line from me: this guy really lived and most of what he said is for real. The one thing we know for almost sure is that he was crucified in Jerusalem, as reported by Josephus. This was a major public event. I happen to think that once people are dead that is it, so, I do not get excited about the supposed “resurrection.” If that is the bottom line on being a “Christian,” I am not one.
But I have now been twice to what is almost certainly the site of his crucifixion in Jerusalem in the very weird Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It really happened and probably there. What happened after that looks to be up for grabs.
So, whatever one thinks about his death or later events, he presented a serious moral vison, which included multiple appeals for charity for the poor, along with his disruption of the money changers in the temple in Jerusalem, which may have fed in to the local interests supporting shutting him down.
Things Yeshua bar Yosef never said a word about:
sexual identity or preference
As it is scholars note that the Qur’an has far more references to charity for the poor than does either book of the King James version of the Bible. This is true.
Bottom line is that I take seriously that this clearly world-historical individual died a horrific death on a cross, a form of execution I am glad we have moved beyond. Given the many wise and moral things he is reported to have said, I regret that he had to die in such an awful way.
So, getting to current commentary on this long ago event, I note Michael Gerson’s column in yesterday’s WaPo (the appropriate date). He focused on the positive remarks of Yeshua on his death, which appear in Luke, a gospel written by a Greek follower of Paul long after the actual events. This included two items long and widely repeated, although probably not actually said by Yeshua.
I nw provide the last words Yeshua said on the cross according to the four Gospel versions in the seriously flawed but magnificent King James version:
Gospel of Matthew: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani.”
Gospel of Mark: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani.”
Gospel of Luke: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”
Gospel of John: “It is finished.”
I note that of these accounts, while John was supposedly an eyewitness, his gospel is viewed as the latest written, and the one more widely disagreeing with various consensuses of the former. Mark is supposed the oldest of them while Matthew was written to please Jewish readers.
A bottom line is that “lama sabachthani” is Aramaic, one of the very few places in any gospel that the language in the New Testament. All translations of that passage are minor variations on the KJV “My God, why hast thou forsaken me.”
Michael Gerson, in WaPo, is just out of it in pushing the almost-certainly inaccurate Luke versions of this, even as he admits the existence of the grimmer laba sabachtani version. Gerson understands that this harder line version of what Yeshua said at the end is a serious competitor to his less creditable and more nicey-nice version of the whole thing.
Whatever the reality of the above, I respect the hard death we know for near certain happened this person who probably mostly went by the name, “Yeshua bar Yosef” (Jesus son of Joseph, not “the son of God,” who, after all, let Yeshua down in the end.
Happy Easter, you all who celebrate it.
First post of fiction I have seen you make.
Well done, Mr. Rosser. Your summary seems to me (the son of a mainstream Christian minister) a fair, honest, factual, and respectful presentation about a human being whose life and death have had a huge impact on the human world. Not all of it good.
Well done Mister Rosser and also Mister Dewey.
I believe that reasonable explanation of the resurrection was developed that also ties in (strangely enough) with The Book of Mormon. I will post link below.
The Lost Years of Jesus: On the Discoveries of Notovitch, Abhedananda … – Elizabeth Clare Prophet – Google Books
[The short of it is that Jesus traveled to Tibet and Nepal where he learned to control his autonomic nervous system well enough to appear dead and stop his own bleeding from Eastern mystics. If you can buy Liz Prophet’s story then it is a short hop to assume that after the resurrection he needed to vanish in order to complete his ruse, so he traveled to America on a Phoenician reed vessel.]
Also, I found the supposed words of Jesus in the East were consistent to those reported in The Gospel According to Thomas found in a ruined tomb near Nag Hamadi in 1945.
As with many controversial subjects, if one is willing to seriously ask the question of oneself and then take the extraordinary effort to research to learn the answer, then one will invariably learn things that defy all generally accepted preconceptions.
you missed the most important part.
He rose on the third day. A human being cannot do that
bin Yusuf” (“Jesus son of Joseph”) was probably how he was most frequently identified in real life in the Aramaic language he mostly operated in, his mother tongue. It has been reported that he knew Hebrew, then strictly a liturgical language, given the reports of him at age 12 discoursing seriously with priests at the temple in Jerusalem. Greek was the lingua franca for business and ultimately the language the New Testament was written in where he was labeled “Iesos Christos,” translated into English as “Jesus Christ.” When he was crucified, almost certainly the only clearly documented event of his life beyond the Bible, thanks to Josephus,
Thanks for the reference! I dated a woman named Ava Maria. We called her Ava. Does the Latin Avus mean grandfather? Latin Ava mean grandmother? Ava Maria mean grandma Maria? Does anyone know if this is correct?
I knew several guys in Arabia named Yusuf.; never thought it might mean Joseph. Longer one lives — more things seem to fit together! I hope you all live long time. Have any of you been able to rate a covid-19 shot? Whoops! Gotta go! Gotta go read about Ibrahim Lincoln.
I should add it was koina greek that was the business language not classical greek!
A lot of people back then were bi-lingual
I do not know the meaning of “Ave Maria,” sorry. “Yusuf” is indeed the Arabic for “Joseph.”
It is quite possible Yeshua was quadri-lingual, not just his mother tongue of the Aramaic of that day and location (it has had many dialects and still does even nos among its remaining few speakers) as well as the Greek of the day and Hebrew for sure, but possibly even Latin as well, which was used for higher level governmental functions.
I apologize that the name I used is inaccurate, with the second two words being Arabic for “son of Joseph.” Properly in Aramaic it should be
Yeshua bar Yosef.
I am late to edit your post and comments. Out West exploring. Check your post and see if this is what you wish (Yeshua bar Yosef).
Barkley et al.
Your having got this far, I should let it be. But religion aside, I cannot let the kind of logic that says “he is reported to have said one thing by some, and another by others, therefore he can only have said one of those things” go without question.
Moreover, the four reports differ in some things and not in others. Somehow it seems to you to cast doubt on the honest of the reports, or the reality of the man. Seems that your own lives have not taught you that different people see different things in the same event, remember still more different things, and say different things at different times according to the context in which they say them.
Or fail to ponder “I speak in parables lest the wicked hear and hearing turn and I should save them.
As for the resurrection… well, given the wise things this man said, and given that he is said to have said things that sounded like claims to be the son of god…. what is there beside our own prejudice that rules out the possibility that the universe is constructed in such a way that such a thing can happen?
Justin, I take your reference to Ibrahim Lincoln to be essentially what I am trying to say here.
” curiously none of these the language he or most of the local population actually spoke in their homes.”
curiously, the languages of the [Roman] law, the [Greek] business class, and the [Hebrew] religion.
I wonder if Pilate even knew “the people” had a language of their own.
As for “letting him down in the end,” I think you may have missed the point of the story. I can’t remember Jesus promising anyone that they were going to live forever without pain, and to prove it he was going to climb down from the cross, after a couple of choruses of “look on the bright side of life,” have a sip of gatorade, and go sit in the Temple forever, more lifelike than even Lenin in his glass case.
He is said to have said, however, that this life and death is not the end of the story.
His story..of death and resurrection… may not have been “the whole point”… but god, being an intelligent novelist…might have seen it as a good way to get people to pay attention to the “Love your neighbor as yourself” bit.
Which, of course, they don’t. Mostly. Which proves his “life and death have had a huge impact on the human world. Not all of it good. ” Because, you see, everything was just fine before Christianity brought war and corruption into the world.
please note… I am talking about logic here, not religion. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe as far as I am concerned. You will make a mess of it, as even I do, but that’s what makes it so interesting.
By the way:
His friends called him Joe.
Totally agree with you and then some. Not only are apparent contradictions plausible for the reasons that you state, but also because sometimes we are still missing part of the story that would connect the disconnects. One cannot know everything about anything even in the present, much less 2,000 years ago.
I am a devout agnostic that at least wishes that Jesus was indeed the son of the living God. Relentless rationality is the inevitable consequence of prolonged material success in any of the STEM-related fields of endeavor. Recurrent episodes of faith and hope are the inevitable consequence of serial mortal losses among friends and family. Despite the apparent divided soul that is manifest, then somehow I have gained great inner peace and acceptance from simultaneously embracing both rationality and faith as much because of the contradictions as despite them. Keynes told us to never discount the uncertainty and I have taken uncertainty to its apex realization.
Yes. I’d agree with you more but the god of links and Angry Bear is angry with me.
i hope this works for the fun part.
as for the important part. I think that enough “rationality” leads to “faith.” But most people think they are being rational when they are only being “materialistic” or “sounds right to me.”
and they think “faith” means crossing your fingers and saying “i believe, i believe” enough times about something they don’t believe. I think it means “putting on your shoes and start walking in the direction you think you want to go.”
Sorry, Coberly, but I gave up on pomo some time ago. There are such things as hard facts, even if people interpret their meaning differentlhy.
Thus I think there were some definite last words Yeshua said. It strikes me that two of the Gospels agree on what those were, with one of those the one widely accepted to be the first of the four written, Mark. Not only that, they report the Aramaic, one of the few things carried over into the English language versions in Aramaic of anything he said.
This strikes me as strong, although certainly not decisive, evidence in favor of lama sabachthani as being those last words.
i don’t know what you mean by pomo. I may have different ideas about proof than you have. I imagine “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?!” could have been said when, in his person as a man, he realized he was indeed going to suffer and die. then “god” might have said to him words that meant “be brave. trust me. have faith. take my hand.” and then Jesus took his hand (spiritually) and said “into thy hands i commend my spirit.” finally, as he passed from this life to whatever lies beyond, he said, “it is finished.”
no reason why different witnesses might have heard or remembered different parts of this.
without the fear and suffering and death the story loses most of its power. imagine if a soldier finds himself and his buddies in an impossible situation, but he can save them if he makes a suicidal attack on the enemy. “no man has greater love than to give his life for his friends.”
now imagine if that brave soldier knew he had a magic trick that would keep him from being killed. alternatively, imagine that that soldier did not beieve he would be resurrected.
three different stories, three different levels of power on the reader.
of course i believe in at least the possibility that the story is true. you can’t quite let yourself, so you chose the version in which “god let him down.”
that’s okay. your choice. no proof anywhere to be had. but I think you are begging the question. what you accept as evidence, and what you accept it as evidence for, strike me as “hunh?”
and that is not a put down. just trying to let you know… we have very different ideas about things.
and, for what it’s worth, i don’t accept the idea that “god” needed a sacrifice to appease his anger, or pride, or whatever it is that makes pagans imagine that killing something will make the god happy with them again.
By pomo I meant exactly what you said here, Coberly, that people reporting different accounts of the last words can all be right. Sorry, no they can’t. One of those is right (or actually, at most one). If you want to claim two persons up there, well, that still leaves at least one of the three wrong and has you being a Nestorian heretic against the Council of Chalcedon’s Doctrine of the Incarnation (“one person, two substances”).
I do not know what is true about all this, but there is yet another rare but quite Christian, although you may consider it pagan, interpretation that allows for there not to have been a resurrection. The only event of Yeshua’s life reported outside the Bible is the crucifixion, by Josephus, who did also report that his followers believed he was raised from the dead.
However, the oldest extant copy of any of the Gospels, is a copy of Mark, reputedly the first of them written, dating from around 300 or so, that is in the St. Catherine monastery on Mount Sinai. It does not contain a report of the resurrection. While there are minor details of difference between the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, none of the resurrection accounts have anything in common, although many of them have people not recognizing the supposedly risen Yeshua.
The Christian version without a resurrection says that indeed what needed to be done was for God to sacrifice his own son (also a part of him according to the doctrine of the trinity) in order to save humanity from the stain of Original Sin. That demanded a real sacrifice, making him suffer as he clearly did. Allowing him to come back softens this sacrifice and undercuts it. To make it really stick, he needs to die, and in misery crying out “lama sabachthani.” Yes, I know. Not an orthodox view.
But what really is the point of the resurrection anyway? To prove that people continue to live after they die? Right, the Hebrews mostly did not believe that, basically said you went to nothingness, which is not too bad. But the Greeks did and had a dualistic setup: great war heroes went to a heavenly Elysian Fields while all the rest of the losers went to a vaguely unpleasant Hades.
So, wow, Yeshua rising replaces that with another dualism: either you believe Yeshua rose from the dead and is the Son of God, in which case you get to go after death to the Christian version of the Elysian Fields, heaven, or else you go to something worse than the Greek Hades, a Cristian inferno of awful punishment for eternity.
Great. Maybe better we are saved from Original Sin but just all go to nothingness anyway. Looks a lot better than damning the vast majority of humanity to an awful hell. Sounds pretty un-Christian to me, frankly.
There is no Christianity without a resurrection. It would be meaningless drivel.
A human being would not be without sin. Only one who is god as well can fit that description.
Jewish religious leaders hated Jesus and would have mounted a large campaign against such a story.
They were unsuccessful because he was viewed by thousands not to mention the huge change in behaviour by his apostles.
by what logic or experience do you conclude that a person could not say something — three things– and different witnesses could not hear or report different parts of what he said?
As for the different persons “up there” (have you confused “three sentences” with “three persons?” I have no trouble with the idea that “god” (whatever that is) could divide himself into three persons, or ten billion, and still remain “one”, but that does not seem to be what you are objecting to here. you assume that there is no god and that he does not talk to us in private. Then you “reason” from that that Christians got everything wrong, including his name. i can’t say i see any evidence at all for that assumption.. or the conclusion. unless you mean by the “refutations” of sophisticated people of the simple superstitions or primitive science of the less sophisticated. neither of which have any logical bearing on the question.
i don’t claim resurrection or no resurrection, i just don’t accept your “logic.” I don’t see what “first published” has to do with the reliability of the story. You might have noticed I don’t care much about the “orthodoxy” or heresy of the various versions, i think I may have mentioned the “god needs a sacrifice in order to forgive us our sins” strikes me as a pagan idea. I thought I suggested a better version. Not that the resurrection was to “prove” that people live after death, but possibly to give people hope when they face suffering and death that this is not the end of the story.
You may be able to live without that hope. Many people find it helpful. I don’t think it is very kind to try to take away that hope because someone told you in first grade that there was no Santa Claus. Or that they told you in high school that the curch persecuted Galileo, or was corrupt, or the cause of more wars than anything else. Or that someone told you “Jesus” was not his real name.
Maybe I need to add that I don’t believe in the “Christian” version of hell myself. Neither, I think, do most Christians. I think hell is a metaphor for the mental state you bring on yourself by persisting in unhealthy thoughts and behaviors (pride, anger, envy, lust, self pity..). I don’t feel the need to consruct a self-consistent system of philosophy to justify my changing beliefs. I have seen what “logic” does for a person, and any scientist who can’t entertain a number of hypotheses is unlkely to discover anything interesting. Jesus “spoke always in parables…”
BTW, thanks to Justin, above
going to determine the existence or virtue of Ibrahim Lincoln.. you would find many versions of the story…none of which prove a damn thing. But the more you learn about him (what people say about him) the easier it is to believe some versions more than others. And the harder it is to doubt his existence. As for his name, I provided a link above to a web site with a pretty convincing argument that “jesus” descends by perfectly normal linguistic variation from the spelling used by all of the Apostles.. which might have been pronounced Yeshua or “something like that.” or as Justin points out, Abraham is probably the way his friends pronounced his name which was clearly Ibrahim in the original Hebrew. Or something like that.
Let us be clear, I am not posing what I put as what happened. I do not know what happened, although I do think the crucifixion happened, and I have been to its likely site in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem twice. I know what the ground looks like there.
Suppose in fact there was no resurrection. My story would say that indeed Man was cleansed of Original Sin by God’s sacrifice of his only begotten Son. I know this goes against the vast majority of standard Christian stories, but even if it is true history happened, and the Christians did very well. Of course key was Paul who preached to the Gentiles against the view of James in Jerusalem, who essentially said Christianity should be a Jewish sect.
Sorry, one of the three sentences was the last one Yeshua said, even if witnesses disagreed. Of course, three of them were not eyewitnesses, although Mark was supposedly written first. John was supposedly an eyewitness, but most scholars think that Gospel was written much later and it differs sharply from the other three, which are quite similar, although this is mostly Matthew and Luke adding stuff to the much shorter Mark.
As for three persons, nobody has ever said you had all three persons of the trinity on the cross. It was Yeshua, the Son, not the other two, so this is not a matter of each of them said one of the last sentences. This is even worse heresy than monophysitism.
Anyway, I am not going to add to this further, given that a theological debate that could get really tangled up is not really appropriate for an econ blog. So, outtahere, maties, and believe whatever you want.
the four gospels emphasise different things. They emphasise different things therefore at his death.
Jesus had to be both man and god. By being man he can take the punishment for those whom repent. By being God he is without sin.
A mere man would take punishment for his own sin -no-one elses.
Why would the apostles so change their behaviour and even die in their belief if Jesus was not resurrected. As CS Lewis said he would be both a liar and a lunatic.
Just in passing no person spoke more about hell than Jesus. You cannot be a Christian and not believe in it.
There is no point in Jesus dying and then being resurrected.
Barkes you have a problem.
If Man is cleansed of sin as you put it then there MUST be a resurrection. You only die because of sin. If Jesus di not sin then he has conquered death.
No resurrection no Christianity.
not adding to this further leaves you with the last word. and leaves me wondering what to make of your last post in which two or three of them were “up there.” as to A witness saying “why hast thou forsaken me?” i don’t see why his saying that was the last word carries any weight once you admit some people might have heard different parts of what Jesus said than others.
other than that you are right to disengage this is getting us nowhere, not even as far as understanding what each other says, much less what Jesus said, and why none of them being eyewitnesses privileges the oldest account with being the most correct.
not+trampis (and also not “mate”)
as you point out different witnesses emphasize diferent things. i don’t want to argue with you, because you might be on a better path than I am, and I am less likely to convince you than I am Rosser.
but compare the passaages in the new testament that talk about hell with the passages that talk about forgiveness and love. it’s hard for me to see the god of love punishing people in hell. the hell passages look to me like metaphor, or, as someone taught me once, sometimes you have to scare people to be good, so they have a chance to find out that being good feels better than being bad.
be a little careful about mistaking the laws of man for the laws of god.
everyone is a ‘mate’.
As I said no-one talks about the perils of hell more than Jesus.
There is no point in the resurrection if there is no hell. Why would he take the punishment for anyone if it is for naught.
trampis was the name of the villain in “The Virginian”?
i said “not mate”, because Rosser addressed you as “mate”, which i took to be his mistaking your salutation for your name, as sometimes happens on blogs.
seems to me a certain kind of preacher (John Edwards?) talks more about hell than Jesus, who talked more about forgiveness. I suggested a reason Jesus might talk about hell. You did not hear.
I also suggested a reason Jesus might “give his life for his friends” not to save them from a burning place called hell, but to save them from their own sins (which is what punishes them, not God as some ancient tyrant punishing his subjects for failing to grovel convincingly, or half-crazy parent might punish their children for sassing them, or otherwise doing some socially unacceptable thing.)
the way “saving” them might work would be by providing an example of “greater love” “sacrifice” and the hope of heaven.
you seem to be caught in a set of words you can’t let go of. the usual problem. i can only suggest possibilities.
Trampas was a villain in the book but a ‘hero’ in the TV series. Still the best TV western seen on TV.
Barkes calls me mate because I call him mate. It is what we ausssies do.
I said Jesus talks more of the perils of hell in the bible than anyone else. ffor good reason.
Hell is where unrepentant sinners go.
They are saved because Jesus took their punishment.
It seems you are confused
not very confused. i know what you said, and i think i know what you mean. I may even agree that is what most people who call themselves christians believe. I just can’t bring myself to believe that the Jesus of the New Testament, and the God of that Jesus, would act like stone age pagan or a bronze age tyrant. or think like the people Jesus came to save from such thinking.
I didn’t know Barkley was an Aussie. You will note I agree with his disgust with the Jesus as human sacrifice, god as cosmic torturer, interpretation of scripture. I’m not so sure he noted that.
Not commenting further on the theology as promised, but on this “mate” matter, Not + Trampis and I have interacted quite a bit on other blogs and it came out that I have spent some time in OZ, that is, Australia, where I learned about how they call everybody “mate.” I am an American, but as I figured out he is an Ozzie, I called him “mate,” which he seemed to appreciate and has reciprocated. OK?
certainly ok with me. i hope my error serves as a demonstration of how errors occur in translation if not “reporting.” rather than simply proof of my stupidity.
as far as theology goes, i thought i was trying to talk about logic, not theology. only suggested a more humane theology that could also be derived from the “evidence,” at least if one came at it from a different point of view.
Jesus was NOT a sacrifice. He copped everyone’s punishment for sin. Thus when I die my punishment has already been done.
Since you do not believe yours is not.
It is that simple.
Barkes is a mate and always will be
that is simple. it doesn’t even agree with the popular version, or the received version; i have no idea if it agrees with Rosser’s version.
it’s fine with me if you want to keep it. but you might want to look up the word “sacrifice,” not that dictionary definitions are the last word, but the word has a history.
and just for laughs: I cannot imgagine a god who love, or a just god, or even a sane god feeling the need to punish even sinners, let alone his only begotten son as a substitute for the sinners.
nor can i imagine what sins you think you might need to be punshed for if Jesus doesn’t take the rap.
Jesus talks a lot about forgiving those who trespass against you. why do you suppose god would not forgive you?
my own idea is that he is waiting patiently for you to realize that “sinning” is not making you happy, and turn and find out “loving god with all of your heart…, and your neighbor as yourself,” does make you happy, and happier as you get better at it… even if it takes ten thousand lifetimes.
so, yes, Barkley, if you are listening, I AM a heretic, far wilder than the church fathers could have imagined. you probably don’t want to know what I think “this is my body…” means. a hint though… it’s similar to “as you did to the least of these…”
it’s those damn parables again.
anyway, since Jesus is going to be punished for my sins, you don’t have to burn me at the stake….as you have done to the least of these…
I have no idea of what the popular or received version you talk about is but it is what the bible talks about.
Jonathan Edwards of whom you did not like did talk about it.
It gets a regulars talking in Christianity today. for Evangelicals in your country who are not as stupid to apologise for trump etc
I was very fond of Jonathan Edwards grandson. As for “The angry God who holds you over he pit of hell, much as you would dangle a spider or some loathsome insect over a fire, abhors you and is dreadfully provoked..” well, than kind of went out of fashion about three hundred years ago. Thing is, I can’t square that with “love your enemies…” “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..” “Go and find what it means, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice…” Not to mention certain words regarding substituting the laws of man for the laws of God.
But I like to say you are free to take whatever path you want. You are sure to get where you want to go. If Jesus spoke always in parables, it is not for me to explain them.
Your problem is that you cannot have God bringing justice to the matter.
A person sins then there must be punishment for that. Bear in mind we sin every day and Mild mannered Jesus said being angry with someone was similar to murder.
For those who repent Jesus has taken their punishment. A mere human could not do that as they would have their own sins to deal with. as he was God as well he was sinless.
A simple story that some find hard to understand. It is a great pity
i have some time on my hands so i don’t mind answering you, even though I know it won’t help.
I have no idea what your first sentence means.
I have no idea what “justice” might mean to god. but he does say “I will have mercy and not justice.” And talks a lot about forgiving sins and loving your enemy for a guy who is determined to “punish” sin. And he does sound a lot smarter and more humane to me than some Moloch or Baal who needs a sacrifice in order to forgive sin. Best “sacrifice” meaning I can come up with is “greater love has no man than he who gives up his life for his friends.” That sounds to me more like the sacrifice of a soldier or firefighter who knows he may die trying to save people, but goes in anyway. Not some human victim slaughtered on an alter to appease an angry…or hungry..god. And if he said being angry with someone was similar to murder, or looking after a woman with lust was the same as adultery, I think he might have been trying to teach us something about what “sin” means, and not threatening us with horrible punishments for trivial…very common human…”bad thoughts.” Thing is that dwelling on anger or dwelling on lust can eat up your soul (make you unhappy and miss out on your life). Note that “covet” was among the “words” of the ten commandments…right up there with murder and adultery.
I think you have the god of Jesus mixed up with Moloch. It is a common mistake. Please note you said “mild mannered Jesus.” Since Jesus was God, does that not make God mild mannered?
And was Jesus so mild mannered when he turned over the tables of the money changers in the Temple?
Now, see, you present me with a problem. What use would the God I imagine have for someone who can’t understand this? [My answer is that he has all the time in the world to wait for you to learn to love the good…even if it takes you a thousand lifetimes.] This is undoubtedly heresy, but I am okay with that. No God I can imagine is going to burn me at the stake for it. And those men who might…or might have in an earlier age… were only men, and not very good men at that.
Justice is punishing people for sin.
That is why Jesus dies on the cross as predicted. He takes the punishment for all that believe.
If you do not believe then you have to take your punishment.
As I said it is pretty simple.