Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[outhouse]

Your not trying to say this makes Jesus a historical figure are you?

He flat is a historical figure. He has historicity and a consesnsus of scholars and professors back this.


There is no replacement hypothesis for a mythical character, no one has been able to explain how or why a muythological figure could be or was created that explains why we have the evidence we do.


No one in antiquity questioned his historical existance, not even the enemies of the movement.


People flat trashed Paul from teh very beginning, but none stated he is following a mythical creation.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hey people,
Can we stick to the topic of the OP

thanks

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is there really enough information to have any certainty that anyone knows the truth of the matter?

Not in my view. I think it's nonsense to insist that the crucifixion is an historical fact. Just as it's nonsense to insist that it didn't happen.

But it's not nonsense to see the crucifixion metaphorically.

Experts make reasonable assumptions based on available evidence. Doesn't make the experts right. Just makes their assumptions reasonable. Truth is I think they could be just as wrong as the guy who pulls some random theory from his back-side. Wrong is wrong. Doesn't matter how reasonable one's argument is if it is still wrong.

I don't know, I've look into it. I see the reasonableness of the position but I also see where the assumption are. The assumptions are always biased.

Yes. The assumptions are always biased. And I think there is one fundamental assumption which most biblical scholars are overlooking: People crave heroes. They are suckers for a good hero story.

Maybe Jesus was crucified, as Mark claims. Or maybe people reacted to Mark's Jesus story as they reacted to Joseph Smith's claims of prophethood. People embrace heroes, no matter what the evidence is one way or the other.

One can always question the assumptions of the experts and really there's no reason why we shouldn't.

I dunno. I just plain enjoy questioning assumptions. Everyone's assumptions, including my own.

So go with whichever position makes you happy and let others pretend to know the truth about something.

That's a fine outlook, but it's not really for me. I'm a debater.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey people,
Can we stick to the topic of the OP

thanks

Maybe you could present it again so that everyone can refocus?

You seemed to ask whether the crucifixion was historical or whether we think that Mark made it up just to cap off his story?

 

[Nakosis]

He flat is a historical figure. He has historicity and a consesnsus of scholars and professors back this.


There is no replacement hypothesis for a mythical character, no one has been able to explain how or why a muythological figure could be or was created that explains why we have the evidence we do.


No one in antiquity questioned his historical existance, not even the enemies of the movement.


People flat trashed Paul from teh very beginning, but none stated he is following a mythical creation.

No, sorry... I get it. Thought we were talking about the metaphor of the crucifixion. Didn't realize I dropped into the middle of a historical vs mythical Jesus debate.

 

[Desert Snake]

Maybe you could present it again so that everyone can refocus?

You seemed to ask whether the crucifixion was historical or whether we think that Mark made it up just to cap off his story?

You were on topic, just the crucifixion aspect, I mean, no problem.

 

[outhouse]

No, sorry... I get it. Thought we were talking about the metaphor of the crucifixion. Didn't realize I dropped into the middle of a historical vs mythical Jesus debate.

While metaphors can be used in any theology, the crucifixion was not just a a metaphor, nor has it been shown to be such with any credibility.

It was a historical event.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, sorry... I get it. Thought we were talking about the metaphor of the crucifixion. Didn't realize I dropped into the middle of a historical vs mythical Jesus debate.

Yeah, theres another thread for the myth vs. HJ debate.

 

[Nakosis]

Not in my view. I think it's nonsense to insist that the crucifixion is an historical fact. Just as it's nonsense to insist that it didn't happen.
But it's not nonsense to see the crucifixion metaphorically.

I guess what is compelling about a historical crucifixion is that is almost a defeat for the religion. The superhero gets killed in the end. Not the way one would think a disciple to end the story. The resurrection maybe, to justify the death.

Though I have heard there is a would be Messiah recorded by the Judeans which has some similarities to Jesus who was actually stoned to death. Still leaves a historical "Jesus" just not a historical crucifixion. With Romans going about crucifying people at the time the story was written, why wouldn't the stoning turn into a crucifixion?

Same embarrassment to deal with. A dead Messiah.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, theres another thread for the myth vs. HJ debate.

Sorry, just tend to deal with the posts where they fall....

 

[Desert Snake]

I guess what is compelling about a historical crucifixion is that is almost a defeat for the religion. The superhero gets killed in the end. Not the way one would think a disciple to end the story. The resurrection maybe, to justify the death.

Though I have heard there is a would be Messiah recorded by the Judeans which has some similarities to Jesus who was actually stoned to death. Still leaves a historical "Jesus" just not a historical crucifixion. With Romans going about crucifying people at the time the story was written, why wouldn't the stoning turn into a crucifixion?

Same embarrassment to deal with. A dead Messiah.

No, disagree, you're looking at this from your specific perspective, like many people. I think you have to look at all the factors involved, i.e. authorship, audience, time period ,etc.

 

[oldbadger]

So do you have any idea why biblical scholars accept the crucifixion as historical?

Go and read two HJ books by HJ historians or scholars, and then we can discuss it...... I would be very interested (then) to read your 'takes' on it all.

 

[oldbadger]

It only takes simple one liners to refute your ignorance on poverty and bias.

The poverty of these people was based on more then Harris lines. It was just the amo I threw at you, and you couldnt even get a bullet in the gun.

Yes, yes...... of course the working people were oppressed, over taxed, cheated and let down by their quisling ruling class and priesthood. Otherwise JtB and Jesus would never have had an issue. I've been writing about that for a very long time now.

The issue was whether or not Galilee was one of the most fertile regions in the whole Roman Empire....... READ CROSSON! That means that kids had ruses and scams..... they weren't idiots! And then you start chucking your one liners around.

So did the working people........ and the fisher folk..... have ruses and scams. Jesus actually refers to one or two in the Gospels. That gives folks like me the opportunity to think on this kind of aspect.

I read about all this in connection with skeletons from battle fields like Edgehill and Naseby....... and the differences between Royalist and Roundhead physiques...... Your prejudice is incredible.

Let's call it a day.

 

[outhouse]

The issue was whether or not Galilee was one of the most fertile regions in the whole Roman Empire....... READ CROSSON!

It was fertile, and yet peasant children were starving, even those on nice houses were starving and not eating well.

Looking at Sepphoris and Tiberius, yes they were rich Hellenist who exploited the local agricultural community kicking the peasants off the land and leasing it, when they did not make their quota, they were taken as slaves to pay their debt.

That means that kids had ruses and scams..... they weren't idiots!

Sources please.

Because the literacy rate was dismal, and rural areas worse like Nazareth.

That gives folks like me the opportunity to think on this kind of aspect.

You take a position not held by others, the authors were far removed from any Galilean lifestyle. They had little to no knowledge of Galilean daily life.


You ignore that Galileans were violent politically and did not take this Hellenistic oppression lightly. You also ignore how Antipas would have treated these rebels.

Let's call it a day.

Im not sure you have any business debating these things trying to take down scholars and professors when you hold an obscure view.

 

[outhouse]

Sources

Galilee in Jesus' Time: A Region Transformed by Urbanization

The Socioeconomic Impact Was Enormous

Professor Reed wrote that the socioeconomic impact of Antipas' two cities on Galilee in Jesus' time was enormous. As had the public works projects of Antipas' father, Herod the Great, building Sepphoris and Tiberias provided steady work for Galileans who previously had subsisted on agriculture and fishing. What's more, archaeological evidence has indicated that within one generation - the very time of Jesus - some 8,000 to 12,000 people moved into Sepphoris and Tiberias.

Historians have long noted the far-reaching effects that this kind of mass migration has on people. There would have been need for farmers to grow more food to feed the people in Sepphoris and Tiberias, so they would have needed to acquire more land, often through tenant farming or mortgage. If their crops failed, they might have become indentured servants to pay off their debts.

 

[outhouse]

Sources

The Bible and Interpretation - National Geographic’s “Jesus: the Man” ? A Review

As land and resources were consolidated under Roman occupation, the rich became richer and the poor poorer. Tax gatherers worked for the Romans, demanding a cut from the modest earnings of the poor and creating intense resentment among the populace. As Judas the Galilean had led a revolt in Galilee against the Roman presence and its influence three decades earlier, the ministry of John the Baptist should be understood as a striking protest on several levels.

As scholars have recently noted, the word usually translated “carpenter” (tekton) can also mean someone who worked with his hands, or a stone worker. As Joseph may have done stonework and manual labor rather than being a craftsman with wood, this would have put him in the lowest of the lower class. Therefore, the family Jesus grew up in would not have owned land, but they would have been subsistence farmers accustomed to menial labor. According to Stephen Patterson, the family of Jesus was a step below the normal peasant.

 

[Nakosis]

No, disagree, you're looking at this from your specific perspective, like many people. I think you have to look at all the factors involved, i.e. authorship, audience, time period ,etc.

I'm just referring to the general acceptance of the crucifixion.

Authorship of the "Gospels" unknown.
Audience? Who do you think the audience was.
Time period...

Wait, are we talking HJ or metaphor now?

I don't know that time period is reliable to make assumptions from. There's always rebels and outliers.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm just referring to the general acceptance of the crucifixion.

Authorship of the "Gospels" unknown.
Audience? Who do you think the audience was.
Time period...

Wait, are we talking HJ or metaphor now?

I don't know that time period is reliable to make assumptions from. There's always rebels and outliers.

I'm saying, you are just assuming some story that seems logical to you, but the assumption is too quick, because you have to accept that the narrative and even Josephus, do not have Jesus dying on the cross, they either aren't mentioning it, as in Josephus, or it is a "resurrection" scenario as in much of Christian doctrine, Now, make the next logical step, if you're an HJ'r, the conclusion is either
a.Jesus survived the cross
b.Jesus resurrected
That is the most likely choices, otherwise you're inventing some story/myth thing that isn't supported by anything.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Go and read two HJ books by HJ historians or scholars, and then we can discuss it...... I would be very interested (then) to read your 'takes' on it all.

I was hoping that you had already read enough such books to have formed an opinion about it. You really don't know why scholars think of the crucifixion as historical?

That surprises me a bit. I was thinking you must be familiar with it.

 

[steeltoes]

Stop griping and go read the scholars. Think about it...... then you'd be able to debate such topics in a way that might impress folks......?

So you don't know what makes the crucifixion historical, it's just a faith based belief of yours.