Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[steeltoes]

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.

Wrong, it's a faith based belief.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Yes, I am accepting that the position of Outhouse in this case is logically supported and agreeing that a large number of historical scholars support the position. It's a reasonable position for anyone to take.

While I accept it is possible that someone might survive crucifixion there are also a number of other that are possible but like you said, it's a matter of pulling something out of one's back-side in order to support.

The gospels IMO are hearsay. No way to guarantee any kind of accuracy of the accounts. At this point in my understanding I write off the resurrection as a fictional account. Also the story to me seems to make a sudden change in impetus at the resurrection.

However I'm interested in your position. If you've stated it already could you direct me to that post?

 

[Prophet]

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.

That's the next logical step? If I got stoned to death for being my wise prophet self and a historian forgot to mention I was stoned in favor of mentioning I was wise, the logical step would be to think I had survived or had been resurrected?

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, I am accepting that the position of Outhouse in this case is logically supported and agreeing that a large number of historical scholars support the position. It's a reasonable position for anyone to take.

It isn't reasonable. It's speculation that deviates from texts, without any historical backup.

The gospels IMO are hearsay. No way to guarantee any kind of accuracy of the accounts. At this point in my understanding I write off the resurrection as a fictional account. Also the story to me seems to make a sudden change in impetus at the resurrection.

If there is no expectation of truth from the gospels, why even assume some Jewish rebel scenario in the first place? Even if you do assume that, why pick & choose certain things to believe and not others?

However I'm interested in your position. If you've stated it already could you direct me to that post?

My position is simple, I think the Josephus account of Jesus, from the Antiquities, is 'fact' according to him..He doesn't mention a resurrection, but does indicate survival from the cross....take that as you will, but none of these narratives support the often repeated 'anonymous etc, Jewish man turned myth because the followers couldn't rectify their leader being crucified blah blah blah' it doesn't make sense to me.
That isn't how the 'religion' would have started. The timeline is far too short for man-to-mythos anyway.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's the next logical step?

This makes no sense.
You're making up a story, a scenario, out of whole cloth,
and basically expecting me to believe your story....

 

[Prophet]

I didn't make that up. I crafted it as a direct mirror of the situation you put up. How is it substantively different?

 

[Desert Snake]

I didn't make that up. I crafted it as a direct mirror of the situation you put up. How is it substantively different?

Dude...You did make that up.
What we have are some texts,
narrative that is religious in nature, and some
that is secular...
Your scenario is not backed or even indicated by any of it...
it simply is fictional speculation, with major problems, like
timeline, nature of early believers, evidence to the contrary etc.

 

[steeltoes]

The problem here is, there is enough evidence to make a compelling case for historicity.


You just have a very slight few, a very small fraction like .0001 ish percent of the people who throw the evidence out the window.


There is almost complete universal consensus that the man was historical to the point they claim crucifixion and baptism are fact. That is more then compelling.

That may have you convinced but for the critical thinker that is nothing more than fallacious reasoning. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe Jesus was historical; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something [/FONT]says nothing about the fact of that something[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

Trying to get anyone to tell us what makes scholars come to their conclusions arrives at a dead end because of the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes Jesus was historical or so-and-so believes Jesus was mythical.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So, is anyone up to the challenge of providing evidence for the crucifixion?[/FONT] [/FONT]

 

[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 have no idea how you came up with that. Even my OP doesn't suggest that. My position is about making the best assumptions.

 

[steeltoes]

I have no idea how you came up with that. Even my OP doesn't suggest that. My position is about making the best assumptions.

The best assumption would appear as the least assumption.

 

[Desert Snake]

The best assumption would appear as the least assumption.

Well, that could include..real Jesus plus no crucifixion, hence the thread. Generally I agree with your statement, far too much baseless storytelling going on.

 

[idea]

If the crucifixion isn't real, the greatest love doesn't exist.

 

[steeltoes]

Well, that could include..real Jesus plus no crucifixion, hence the thread. Generally I agree with your statement, far too much baseless storytelling going on.

I have no way of knowing if Jesus was real or not, or if the crucifixion was real or not. A narrative written probably no earlier than 70CE about a miracle working godman that supposedly really and truly lived and died decades earlier raises questions about a supposed history that HJ proponents try desperately to provide for. Why the desperation? Why are we supposed to care? Okay, so the story provides the most influence of any on our culture. Is that why the main character, our hero must be considered real? Is that why the crucifixion has to be real for most people? It appears as a good story, why not leave it at that?

 

[Desert Snake]

I have no way of knowing if Jesus was real or not, or if the crucifixion was real or not. A narrative written probably no earlier than 70CE about a miracle working godman that supposedly lived and died decades earlier raises questions about a supposed history that HJ proponents try desperately to answer. Why the desperation? Why are we supposed to care? Okay, so the story provides the most influence of any on our culture? Is that why He must be considered real? Is that why the crucifixion has to be real for most people?

I think the idea that "Jesus" is supposed to be a real 'rebel' i.e. anti-Roman, some say anti-Pharissee, but notice how the HJ'rs don't seem to subscribe to Jesus surviving the cross, or not even being crucified....this part of the narrative, the crucifixion,(not the resurrection), is what gets them going...this aspect is the "important" part we're supposed to believe, as far as I can tell.
Why? good question.

 

[steeltoes]

I think the idea that "Jesus" is supposed to be a real 'rebel' i.e. anti-Roman, some say anti-Pharissee, but notice how the HJ'rs don't seem to subscribe to Jesus surviving the cross, or not even being crucified....this part of the narrative, the crucifixion,(not the resurrection), is what gets them going...this aspect is the "important" part we're supposed to believe, as far as I can tell.
Why? good question.

Yes, "why?" is a good question. Maybe it has something to do with hero worship.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, "why?" is a good question. Maybe it has something to do with hero worship.

Could be.

 

[Prophet]

Dude...You did make that up.
What we have are some texts,
narrative that is religious in nature, and some
that is secular...
Your scenario is not backed or even indicated by any of it...
it simply is fictional speculation, with major problems, like
timeline, nature of early believers, evidence to the contrary etc.

Your concern with evidence to the contrary does not seem genuine, as you are willing to throw away a wealth of scientific evidence that clearly says without exception that no one physically comes back from the dead after rotting for three days along with whatever other crazy beliefs your faith forces upon your mind.

 

[steeltoes]

Your concern with evidence to the contrary does not seem genuine, as you are willing to throw away a wealth of scientific evidence that clearly says without exception that no one physically comes back from the dead after rotting for three days along with whatever other crazy beliefs your faith forces upon your mind.

That is how the story was written, you don't get to change it. As the story goes he was resurrected, in fact it is the point of the story, and it's fiction.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is how the story was written, you don't get to change it. As the story goes he was resurrected, in fact it is the point of the story, and it's fiction.

They're telling us that the most important part is fiction, but we should believe the other narrative, to their speculation...it's ridiculous.

 

[Prophet]

That is how the story was written, you don't get to change it. As the story goes he was resurrected, in fact it is the point of the story, and it's fiction.

Writings declared contraband by Rome challenged the supernatural elements of the Jesus story being told in the canon.

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.

This is what the Gospel of Philip had to say about the confusing nature of words in general, the implication being that most people don't know what's being talked about when they read scripture as they attach incorrect meanings to words... like resurrection.

It gets more specific:

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would [...].

A physical resurrection is not the only magical doctrine questioned:

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

Clearly, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is being challenged here.

So, no, your source is not authoritative.