Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[AmbiguousGuy]

You're attempting to paint me as an insane person.

Wow. So you think that anyone who claims enlightenment is insane? Or seen as insane by most people?

Can you say why you think so?

This technique is called "ad hominem" and is often used by rhetoricians who are rapidly losing control of the argument to their opponents. The reason rhetoricians employ this tactic while they are losing battles is two-fold: 1) to distract attention from the embarrassing defeat they are experiencing (and, let's face it, nothing is more humiliating than being exposed as a hypocrite) and 2) to lend the appearance of false strength to themselves.

If only you were as willing to discuss the crucifixion as you are to discuss strange rhetorical techiques, imagine what progress we might make on this issue.

So what do you think about the crucifixion?

 

[Nakosis]

If only you were as willing to discuss the crucifixion as you are to discuss strange rhetorical techiques, imagine what progress we might make on this issue.

So what do you think about the crucifixion?

Well, what I've read is that there probably wasn't a cross. The Romans nailed people to a simple pole. I suspect a lot of symbolism and hidden meaning was intended by someone. Whoever John was. The other gospels are likely the result of urban myth. John was a mystic or of mystical thinking. He had something in mind some theology/ideology that he tried to encode into the story.

However whatever his intent, hidden meaning, any means to verify it is lost. So I think people end up fitting the symbolism to whatever their belief needs it to be. I just don't pretend a particular interpretation has any greater validity.

Maybe you can tell me otherwise. I'd like to think a justifiable meaning exists, just really don't think there's enough facts available to do the justifying part.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi, Nakosis. Thanks for the message.

Well, what I've read is that there probably wasn't a cross. The Romans nailed people to a simple pole.

Yeah, I've heard the same. But I seem to have heard of other heroes, before Jesus, who were hung on crosses or tree branches and such. Maybe.

I suspect a lot of symbolism and hidden meaning was intended by someone. Whoever John was. The other gospels are likely the result of urban myth. John was a mystic or of mystical thinking. He had something in mind some theology/ideology that he tried to encode into the story.

I agree. I can't take John seriously as any kind of historical report.

However whatever his intent, hidden meaning, any means to verify it is lost. So I think people end up fitting the symbolism to whatever their belief needs it to be. I just don't pretend a particular interpretation has any greater validity.

I'm fine with any symbolism which works for people. Actually I'd be a lot happier if people could let go of historicity entirely. I think the historical Jesus can be disconnected completely from Christianity. It's just a matter of viewpoint.

Maybe you can tell me otherwise. I'd like to think a justifiable meaning exists, just really don't think there's enough facts available to do the justifying part.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you say it another way?

 

[outhouse]

'twas utter drivvel.

1. Development of Harris lines is actually associated with accelerated rates of linear growth and is part of the normal growth process. (Magennis 1990)

2. No findings in Galilee.

3. Any cessation of growth for hundreds of possible reasons will cause development of the line.

You are surely the master of one-liners. Talking about malnutrition, if you had needed to survive as an investigator you would surely have starved to death, imo.

You don't get to make up the rules.


Your research is very incomplete.


You cannot hand wave professors findings because you don't like it.


http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...60&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104188551623

Try reading

 

[steeltoes]

So what do you think about the crucifixion?

I would like to know what makes scholars come to the conclusion that the crucifixion was an actual historical event rather than a literary device. Do posters here know how they came by their conclusions or is the crucifixion a faith belief?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I would like to know what makes scholars come to the conclusion that the crucifixion was an actual historical event rather than a literary device. Do posters here know how they came by their conclusions or is the crucifixion a faith belief?

It's a fair question. I'd like to hear people attempt to answer it.

So far as I know, historians believe it because it's the thing they need to believe in order for Jesus to seem like an actual historical character. I mean, you can't begin to build an historical Jesus without a crucifixion. It's central to the storyline.

Sorry if that sounds lame. It's all I can come up with.

As I say, I believe Christian thinkers would be well-served to view most all of the Bible and Christianity as metaphorical, spiritual, whatever. Not as historical, scientific, whatever.

 

[roger1440]

The crucifixion and resurrection is the climax of the Jesus saga. Without those two events Jesus would have been just another traveling preacher. The more important question is not whether or not the crucifixion is a metaphor but what does the crucifixion mean. All known Gospels excluding the Gospel of Thomas mention the crucifixion. The author of the Gospel of Thomas does not deny the crucifixion; it just presumes his readers are already familiar with it. The crucifixion and resurrection is the central point of the Jesus message, without it there is no message. All known Gospels revolve around it.

 

[steeltoes]

It's a fair question. I'd like to hear people attempt to answer it.

So far as I know, historians believe it because it's the thing they need to believe in order for Jesus to seem like an actual historical character. I mean, you can't begin to build an historical Jesus without a crucifixion. It's central to the storyline.

Sorry if that sounds lame. It's all I can come up with.

As I say, I believe Christian thinkers would be well-served to view most all of the Bible and Christianity as metaphorical, spiritual, whatever. Not as historical, scientific, whatever.

I think the resurrection is central to the storyline, and that the crucifixion scene is a created literary device for that to happen.

Since no one has attempted to answer my question I have to lean towards an historical crucifixion as a faith belief amongst our posters here.

The critical thinkers, the sceptics among us have their doubts about this crucifixion being based on an actual historical event probably due to Mark's reliance on his ancient scripture that he draws from to tell this story along with Matthew and Luke's reliance on Mark for their story, not to mention John's reliance on Mark for his Passion Narrative.

 

[steeltoes]

The crucifixion and resurrection is the climax of the Jesus saga. Without those two events Jesus would have been just another traveling preacher. The more important question is not whether or not the crucifixion is a metaphor but what does the crucifixion mean. All known Gospels excluding the Gospel of Thomas mention the crucifixion. The author of the Gospel of Thomas does not deny the crucifixion; it just presumes his readers are already familiar with it. The crucifixion and resurrection is the central point of the Jesus message, without it there is no message. All known Gospels revolve around it.

The Son of God came down to earth and suffered just as Gods' people had at the hands of their Roman oppressors. That could be the meaning in the crucifixion and to argue for historicity is to take away from the story and the meaning in my opinion, in other words, I think the point of historicity is totally irrelevant to the story and unnecessary to pursue.

 

[Prophet]

Wow. So you think that anyone who claims enlightenment is insane? Or seen as insane by most people?

Can you say why you think so?

Straw man. I never said anything like a claim of enlightenment makes one insane. I am referring to the condescending tone you used as an ad hominem attack to characterize me as an insane person.

If only you were as willing to discuss the crucifixion as you are to discuss strange rhetorical techiques, imagine what progress we might make on this issue.

Not strange rhetorical techniques. YOUR rhetorical techniques are what I am discussing. They are the foundation from which you debate and are the most relevant topic of discussion in any debate which either side has devolved to the level of accusing the other side of its own faults.

So what do you think about the crucifixion?

I think it probably happened.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have been trying to discern disciples position myself. And what I think he is trying to say is "all or nothing". That is to say that if you believe there was a historical Jesus then you must also accept the narrative that he walked on water, made wine from water, and came back from the dead. I think this is nonsense, and I sincerely apologize to him if this is wrong. But I have found it difficult to understand him.

I'm not saying embellishment is impossible, however I notice many theories basically ignore the actual narrative and people create some theory that 'makes sense', is plausible to them. The problem is, their theories don't make sense to me, the timeline is wrong, they're making unprovable assumptions about early Christians etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

The crucifixion and resurrection is the climax of the Jesus saga. Without those two events Jesus would have been just another traveling preacher. The more important question is not whether or not the crucifixion is a metaphor but what does the crucifixion mean. All known Gospels excluding the Gospel of Thomas mention the crucifixion. The author of the Gospel of Thomas does not deny the crucifixion; it just presumes his readers are already familiar with it. The crucifixion and resurrection is the central point of the Jesus message, without it there is no message. All known Gospels revolve around it.

O.k., I clearly don't understand Christianity then. Fair enough.

 

[Bunyip]

[/b]


O.k., I clearly don't understand Christianity then. Fair enough.

Belief in the crucifixion and ressurection is a core tenet of Christian faith. A Christian is defined as a person who believes in the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus.

 

[steeltoes]

[/b]


O.k., I clearly don't understand Christianity then. Fair enough.

I doubt that I will ever understand Christianity.

 

[Desert Snake]

I doubt that I will ever understand Christianity.

Hmm ..
I think either mythic, or closer to narrative makes sense..The pick&choosem theorists aren't making sense to me.
There simply wasn't enough time for that mythos from person to develop imo/

 

[outhouse]

You don't get to make up the rules.


Your research is very incomplete.


You cannot hand wave professors findings because you don't like it.


JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Try reading

Here is more. And this is from a nice house, nothing like that would have existed in Nazareth.


Not even to my study yet.

The Bible and Interpretation - The Galilean Economy in the Time of Jesus: Can You Dig It?


One reason to ask for human pathological data is because of the Meiron excavation report. Although some of the houses were nice—one elaborate one was dubbed the “Patrician House”11—there were interesting results in the examination of the skeletal remains. First, there was a high rate of child mortality.12 Second, a pathological examination of the children’s skulls revealed that most had protein and iron deficiencies. The examiners concluded that these deficiencies were caused either by disease or “socioeconomic conditions”, i.e. poverty. In other words, the children may have been malnourished.13 So the presence of nice houses does not necessarily indicate how equitable the economy was and thus may not reveal the overall standard of living.



11 E. M. Meyers, J.F. Strange, and C. Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971-72, 1974-75, 1977 Cambridge: MASS: ASOR, 1981) 50-72.


12 See R. Hachlili and P. Smith, “The Genealogy of the Goliath Family” BASOR 235 (1979) 67-71, esp. 69. The children from 0-19 years of age in the Meiron tombs represented 47% of the total. This is roughly the same as the average percentage of children of that age in Greek tombs (49%) but much higher than for the tombs of Jericho (39%, a first century CE tomb) and two tombs in Jerusalem (43%, also from the first century).


13 P. Smith, E. Bornemann, and J. Zias, “The Skeletal Remains” in Meyers, Strange, and Meyers, Excavations at Ancient Meiron, 110-120. There were 197 individuals in this tomb. 95 of them were under age 18. 70% of the 95 persons were younger than five years.

 

[steeltoes]

Hmm ..
I think either mythic, or closer to narrative makes sense..The pick&choosem theorists aren't making sense to me.
There simply wasn't enough time for that mythos from person to develop imo/

I agree, I think Mark was relaying a mythological and mystical kind of story by drawing from his ancient scriptures, and that if he wanted to report history he would have done just that instead of writing a narrative. The pick&choosem theorists aren't making sense to me either.

 

[oldbadger]

29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

Many people who call themselves "Christian" today are the ideological progeny of the lawgivers Jesus openly mocked and dared to murder him.

Yes. This^^
John the Baptist felt the same about them.

 

[oldbadger]

I have been trying to discern disciples position myself. And what I think he is trying to say is "all or nothing". That is to say that if you believe there was a historical Jesus then you must also accept the narrative that he walked on water, made wine from water, and came back from the dead. I think this is nonsense, and I sincerely apologize to him if this is wrong. But I have found it difficult to understand him.

Yes.
Those miracles that you mention. Last year, after almost constant back pains since 1983, with increasing inability to walk without a stick, crushing pain, I was cured. I stood up to leave table after dinner and there was nothing..... no pain, no disability. I didn't know what was going on. I walked about.... nothing. I twisted a bit, then a lot, then jumped about. My wife just stared at me until I explained. After taking Tramadol for yonks, I have not even taken an aspirin since August 2013. I still cannot believe it. It was miraculous.

Incidents like this seem like miracles, and if I had been surrounded by a group of massively superstitious folks who experienced increased levels of male hysteria, etc (Mediterranean males) ....... and if Jesus had been nearby, what might the group have decided?

We talk in miraculous terms every day...... an Olympic runner flew round the course, etc, the hyperbole increases with use.....

With all that in mind, I believe that there are foundations for most of the miraculous events which were reported in G-Mark, and some in G-Matthew. So I don't mind devout Christians insisting upon miracles.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, what I've read is that there probably wasn't a cross. The Romans nailed people to a simple pole.

Hi......
Romans might have used crosses, posts and trees, occording to what was available.

In cities they may have had permanent crucifixion posts with cross beams.
In other places maybe just stakes or posts.
Where trees were present maybe they would use those?