Jesus vs Socrates: who made the greater sacrifice?

[Voltaire2]

Jesus: born circa 4 BCE, died circa CE 30-33. Cause of death: execution by crucifixion.

Jesus of Nazareth is believed by most Christians to be an immortal incarnation of the christian god, and his death is viewed as a sacrificial act that brought the possibility of salvation and eternal life to all people.

Jesus was executed for expressing heretical religious views. Jesus refused opportunities to avoid execution by renouncing his beliefs.

If one believes that Jesus was the incarnation of an immortal deity, one also has to accept that Jesus knew his execution was not the end of his existence, that he died knowing his death was temporary, to be followed shortly by his resurrection and ascension into heaven.


Socrates: born c 470 BCE, died circa 399 BCE. Cause of death: execution by poison.


Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher generally credited as one of the founders of western philosophy, and specifically the Socratic method of rational inquiry.

Socrates was executed for expressing heretical religious views. Socrates refused opportunities to avoid execution by renouncing his beliefs.

As Socrates did not believe he was immortal, he had no expectation that his death was anything other the the end of his life.

[bearsfootball516]

1. Well, this was a question I didn't expect to read today! Lol.

Purely looking at it from a secular point of view, I'd have to argue that crucifixion has to be one of the most horrendous ways to be killed. Obviously poisoning is no joke, but I can't imagine it being worse than crucifixion.

[Mariana]

3. Substitute another individual who was crucified, then.

There were certainly plenty of them. Some Christians like to imagine that Jesus's suffering was unique because he was crucified and crucifixion is a nasty way to go, but they ignore that fact that thousands upon thousands of other people were crucified, too, and that it was equally painful for them.

So:

One goes to his crucifixion believing that when it's over, he'll be dead for good, and his existence as a person will end.
One goes to his crucifixion believing he'll be miraculously resurrected in a few days, and then he will live forever.

Which one is making the greater sacrifice?

[bearsfootball516]

4. I'd still have to go with Jesus.

I don't think there's a greater sacrifice than allowing yourself to die in order to save mankind, regardless of if you'll come back in a few days.

[Mariana]

7. I hadn't thought about the beneficiaries

of the sacrifice as a factor, just the expectations of the person being killed. I still disagree with you, but thank you for reminding me that point of view is one that should be considered.

[Major Nikon]

17. He wasn't saving mankind, he was just fixing it so we can eat bacon and don't have to be circumcised

The rapture prophecy states we are all going to be wiped out anyway, so even if what you claim is true at best all he did was give us a temporary reprieve.

I'm not saying any of this is insignificant. The bacon part alone seems well worth it.

[tonedevil]

32. I like bacon...

as much as the next guy, but i think you are giving pork chops short shrift.

[WhiteTara]

29. He didn't save anyone. Mankind is still a mess

and his message is perverted to incite hatred. Plus, you don't really know what happened because he hasn't told you. However several other people wrote about him and we all know that our own perceptions can definitely affect the true tale.

[Major Nikon]

20. The Romans had several methods of execution

So it wasn't as if that was that option could have been predicted.

[MineralMan]

2. I'm afraid that knowing that he would be resurrected isn't something

all that many Christians ponder very much. Based on comments in other threads, it seems like the question doesn't register.

But, according to the Gospels, Jesus did know. He said it explicitly, or that's what's written, anyway.

It's not something that is stressed, or even mentioned, by most pastors when they talk about the crucifixion and resurrection. That knowledge isn't part of the everyday teachings people hear. That's because it would raise questions like the one you ask.

Socrates is remembered. Those who poisoned him, not so much, really. Apparently, he felt that his integrity was worth dying for. Many have felt such things and have died in defense of their integrity. Most, we don't know about.

[bitterross]

5. Socrates was an actual, real person. Was Jesus?

There may or may not have been a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus. No true, actual historical evidence exists for such a person though.

There are many god-men who preceded Jesus

[MineralMan]

6. Nobody knows whether the stories in

the New Testament are true or not. None of them were written by anyone who witnessed any of it.

Some people believe those stories to be true. They don't know, either.

[rurallib]

9. Thanks for saying this

I was afraid to get entangled in the brawl that might ensue from saying one was real and one probably wasn't.

[bitterross]

10. I'm thick-skinned.

And some might say, occasionally, thick-headed.

[Major Nikon]

18. There is evidence for a person

It's just that all we know for sure is that he was born and crucified. For all we know it could have been for one of a number of capital crimes.

[bitterross]

21. We actually do not know either of those things for certain.

There is no record of the birth of the person. Nor is there any record, other than the New Testament, of the crucifixion. There is absolutely no reliable physical or historical evidence that Jesus existed.

All of the alleged references that are from contemporary sources are in great doubt. They are generally believed to have been inserted at much later times. There are no trustworthy primary sources. None.

Given the voluminous records from the Romans it is highly unlikely such a controversial figure was not documented. The tales of Romans throwing Christians to the lions are also false.

There is so much that is accepted as having happened that just never did.

[Voltaire2]

24. We dont know he was crucified.

I’ll accept as reasonable that somebody existed as the basis for the myths. The details are all problematic.

Socrates at least had Aristophanes write a play about him while he was alive.

[Major Nikon]

25. ...

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources,[1] though there is no consensus among historians on the exact details.[2][3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus

[Voltaire2]

27. The two sources cited are not contemporary.

Nor first person accounts. One is a letter written sometime between the end of the first century and the fourth. The other is Josephus, already problematic as it has been altered, relating the myth.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen. The historicity of Socrates is just far more established.

[Major Nikon]

28. Most secular biblical historians accept the evidence

There is apparently some embellishments of one of Josephus' references, allegedly by a Christian scribe. However, Josephus references Jesus twice and one of the two references isn't in dispute.

I don't think it makes much sense that early Christians would have completely manufactured a person. There would have been no shortage of messianic claimants at the time and it's reasonable to assume one or more of them would have been executed for stirring up shit. I think beyond that most of the story has been manufactured and there's little reason to believe any of it is genuine. Decades, if not a century or more of oral history by fanatical adherents isn't going to do much for accuracy.

[Jim__]

8. Have you read Meno or Phaedo?

I'm not sure Socrates did not believe he was immortal.

The full text of Meno is here. An excerpt:

...

Men. What did they say?

Soc. They spoke of a glorious truth, as I conceive.

Men. What was it? and who were they?

Soc. Some of them were priests and priestesses, who had studied how they might be able to give a reason of their profession: there, have been poets also, who spoke of these things by inspiration, like Pindar, and many others who were inspired. And they say-mark, now, and see whether their words are true-they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness. "For in the ninth year Persephone sends the souls of those from whom she has received the penalty of ancient crime back again from beneath into the light of the sun above, and these are they who become noble kings and mighty men and great in wisdom and are called saintly heroes in after ages." The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, rand having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection -all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry: for it will make us idle; and is sweet only to the sluggard; but the other saying will make us active and inquisitive. In that confiding, I will gladly enquire with you into the nature of virtue.

...

The full text of Phaedo is here. Here is an excerpt from wikipedia on it:

...

One of the main themes in the Phaedo is the idea that the soul is immortal. Socrates offers four arguments for the soul's immortality:

• The Cyclical Argument, or Opposites Argument explains that Forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily "imperishable". As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite. Plato then suggests the analogy of fire and cold. If the form of cold is imperishable, and fire, its opposite, was within close proximity, it would have to withdraw intact as does the soul during death. This could be likened to the idea of the opposite charges of magnets.
  
• The Theory of Recollection explains that we possess some non-empirical knowledge (e.g. The Form of Equality) at birth, implying the soul existed before birth to carry that knowledge. Another account of the theory is found in Plato's Meno, although in that case Socrates implies anamnesis (previous knowledge of everything) whereas he is not so bold in Phaedo.
  
• The Affinity Argument, explains that invisible, immortal, and incorporeal things are different from visible, mortal, and corporeal things. Our soul is of the former, while our body is of the latter, so when our bodies die and decay, our soul will continue to live.
  
• The Argument from Form of Life, or The Final Argument explains that the Forms, incorporeal and static entities, are the cause of all things in the world, and all things participate in Forms. For example, beautiful things participate in the Form of Beauty; the number four participates in the Form of the Even, etc. The soul, by its very nature, participates in the Form of Life, which means the soul can never die.

...

[Voltaire2]

23. An interesting point but....

Socrates was a mere mortal who thought he might have a soul that existed eternally. He was also famous for claiming to not know anything with certainty and for doubting pretty much every claim made by anybody. He also at the end held both your claim of a belief in an eternal soul and that death is the termination of consciousness to be equally valid.

If we accept that Jesus was an incarnation of an omniscient deity, a core Christian belief, then Jesus knew without doubt that his death was not a real death.

[Jim__]

31. You claim: Socrates ... had no expectation that his death was anything other the the end of his life

Fully stated, from the OP:

As Socrates did not believe he was immortal, he had no expectation that his death was anything other the the end of his life.

Your current claim:

He also at the end held both your claim of a belief in an eternal soul and that death is the termination of consciousness to be equally valid.

is quite different. And the second part of that claim: he ... held ... a belief that death is the termination of consciousness, is, at least so far, unsubstantiated.

We do have the words Socrates' followers attributed to him regarding his attitude toward his approaching death. From the Phaedo:

Socrates smiled and said: O Simmias, how strange that is; I am not very likely to persuade other men that I do not regard my present situation as a misfortune, if I am unable to persuade you, and you will keep fancying that I am at all more troubled now than at any other time. Will you not allow that I have as much of the spirit of prophecy in me as the swans? For they, when they perceive that they must die, having sung all their life long, do then sing more than ever, rejoicing in the thought that they are about to go away to the god whose ministers they are. But men, because they are themselves afraid of death, slanderously affirm of the swans that they sing a lament at the last, not considering that no bird sings when cold, or hungry, or in pain, not even the nightingale, nor the swallow, nor yet the hoopoe; which are said indeed to tune a lay of sorrow, although I do not believe this to be true of them any more than of the swans. But because they are sacred to Apollo and have the gift of prophecy and anticipate the good things of another world, therefore they sing and rejoice in that day more than they ever did before. And I, too, believing myself to be the consecrated servant of the same God, and the fellow servant of the swans, and thinking that I have received from my master gifts of prophecy which are not inferior to theirs, would not go out of life less merrily than the swans. Cease to mind then about this, but speak and ask anything which you like, while the eleven magistrates of Athens allow.

As to your observation about Jesus:

If we accept that Jesus was an incarnation of an omniscient deity, a core Christian belief, then Jesus knew without doubt that his death was not a real death.

If we accept that Jesus was the incarnation of an omniscient deity, then, when we try to quantify the magnitude of his sacrifice, we have to try to measure the sacrifice involved in a deity becoming human and being crucified. I'm not sure anyone knows how to do that.

[3Hotdogs]

11. I'd say Jesus made the greater sacrifice. Imaging knowing you were going to a place that was also

inhabited by Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton, Vernon Law, Jimmy Swaggert ---

That explains his quote, "Lord, why has thou forsaken me?"

[Pope George Ringo II]

12. The jesus character gave up his weekend at most.

Socrates died. Definitely going with Socrates on this one.

[Igel]

13. But life-after-death as a kind of immortal soul wasn't a Jewish belief.

It was marginal, and clearly hellenistic--something Jesus in the gospels isn't.

In this case, if he believed in a resurrection, it wasn't "knowledge" that he'd be back since he wouldn't around and would depend on another God (or part of God, take your pick) to bring him back. In other words, was trust, faith, that he would be resurrected. In the interim there was simple non-existence, with no guarantees. Notice that all the "harrowing of hell" Catholic/Protestant doctrines are late, basically depending on the question, "If Jesus was God, and he wasn't around for 3 days, just where the hell was he? Oh, wait. Where? Hell!"

Socrates, on the other hand, thought that since the soul pre-existed (because learning was remembering), that he'd continue in some form, albeit vitiated, after death. At least this was one of his arguments. Presumably he believed them. If he actually existed.

Between the two, therefore, Jesus would be seen as having lost more (kenosis) and facing no hope of regaining it and in addition have more to lose (resurrection versus pre-existing immortality).

[Mariana]

14. Jesus had knowledge of the reality of physical resurrection

according to the stories. He raised Lazarus, so he was familiar with both the concept and the practice of physical resurrection.

[Major Nikon]

19. He also didn't go into it all that willingly

According to the official version, he asked repeatedly why he had been forsaken.

[Mariana]

22. No, he didn't. The story is pretty clear about that.

He begged God to let him off the hook before his arrest. Furthermore, after his arrest, he evaded the questions put to him by the Elders, by Pilate, and by Herod, and took care not to incriminate himself. In this he was successful, since neither Herod nor Pilate found any reason to crucify him. But by then he'd annoyed the Elders so much they wanted him gone for good.

[Major Nikon]

26. In other words he begged himself

Which makes absolutely no sense, unless you realize there's no evidence for the trinity doctrine in the canon and plenty against it.

[Iggo]

15. The one who really died. (n/t)

[edhopper]

16. Didn't Jesus also drink poison and

wimp out out of thecwhole crucifixion thing.

[guillaumeb]

30. Both died for their beliefs.

One form was more painful.

As to immortality:

One of the main themes in the Phaedo is the idea that the soul is immortal. Socrates offers four arguments for the soul's immortality:
The Cyclical Argument, or Opposites Argument explains that Forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily "imperishable". As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite. Plato then suggests the analogy of fire and cold. If the form of cold is imperishable, and fire, its opposite, was within close proximity, it would have to withdraw intact as does the soul during death. This could be likened to the idea of the opposite charges of magnets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedo

So your last argument fails as it conflicts with what Socrates said.

[Major Nikon]

33. You demonstrate a poor understanding of Socrates

Socrates didn't die for his "beliefs". He died because he routinely humiliated those in power and would not refrain from doing so.

I find it more than a bit humorous with those who reference Phaedo in such a manner and think they know what they are talking about. The reason Socrates is making claims of immortality isn't because he believes them to be true, but because he selfishly benefits by believing they are true and if they aren't his ignorance will literally be short lived and of little consequence. The context of all of this is Socrates was literally facing the last moments of his life.

There's quite a bit that's been written about Socrates and his last day in particular. To sum up everything he was and believed or didn't believe in an obviously poorly understood google search does a serious injustice to his work. Whether you are a believer or not, there's a lot to be learned from Socrates.

[guillaumeb]

34. You demonstrated a poor understanding of my response.

Jesus died because He presented a threat to power. Thus the inscription above the crucifix.

[Major Nikon]

35. Perhaps, but Im pretty sure that isnt my fault

I responded to exactly what you posted and addressed it matter of factly. Now you are going on some other tangent. Meanwhile you still haven’t demonstrated any better understanding of Socrates than what a 30 second google search can deliver.

[guillaumeb]

36. I am certain that you believe that.

[Major Nikon]

37. Agreed

[guillaumeb]

38. A first for us?

[NeoGreen]

39. Seems relevant to your question...

...(to me at least)...



http://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/died/