Desert Snake
Veteran Member
O.k., so there is nothing to argue about, you believe there is no question, that's fine.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
O.k., so there is nothing to argue about, you believe there is no question, that's fine.
Over six hundred posts in and nothing but baseless hollow appeals to authority. How do scholars come to their conclusions that the crucifixion really happened? No one here appears to know why they believe what they believe about the crucifixion, yet accuse other posters of denying the crucifixion. Priceless.
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Would this help them understand?
The disciples has heard that Jesus peace be upon him was crucified and were not eyewitness
Mark 14:50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
So that the disciples , they had heard that he was DEAD AND BURIED FOR THREE DAYS. If one is confronted by a person with such a reputation then the conclusion is inescapable; they must be seeing A GHOST. Little wonder these ten brave men were petrified."
So now let us look at the verses.
Luke 24 36-37 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
They thought that Jesus peace be upon him was dead and they thought what they were seeing is a spirit. So Jesus peace be upon him wanted to prove to them that this is not the case.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
Also
Acts 1:3 o whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Here is another reason that Jesus peace be upon him was not crucified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmOZ7ihKtM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKmOZ7ihKtM
Roman thinking is something we don't experience much today, because we take our history literally and demand facts. It seems like Romans 'Believed' in their origin story of Romulus and Remus, but at the same time they didn't believe it rationally. They would probably say "What does it matter whether it actually happened or not? Its our history!" To Romans it seems history was probably more like a mascot for their sports team, or it was like a painting containing truths indirectly. The telling was as important or more important than the story itself. That is probably why today we find ourselves wondering about the nature of the crucifixion. Was it a 'Roman' style history or a literal one?
"What is truth?" says Pilot to Jesus (John 18:38)
outhouse
Atheistically
Sabour
Well-Known Member
Could you post something credible???
Lol ... Let me help you
:slap:Well maybe it is not credible for you, but it is true actually. It makes sense no? I mean the reason they wanted to crucify him.
outhouse
Atheistically
You do know there is almost a complete consensus of historians that the crucifixion is factual????
That is not something you can show with any certainty.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Christian historians. But not Muslim historians, so it seems.
I wonder what Chinese historians think of it.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well no, that is simply not the case. There is no such scholarly consensus on the crucifixion.
There is not enough evidence to establish such consensus. A few seconds online will show you some of the diversity of scholarship on that topic.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Agreed. It's something that is not only up for critical analysis, it is top on the list imo.
It's sketchy imo, and serves various purposes to the narrative, without "fitting" very well into Scripture at the same time.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Thanks.
I think that there is enough evidence to legitimise belief in the crucifixion, but there is certainly room for doubt.
It is as you say, a hot topic in the field, not something for which the case is settled.
That has been parroted about, but since not a single poster has provided an answer as to what makes the scholars come to such a conclusion, the point has to be conceded.
historical 0 metaphor 1
.
This is just not true. Historians are almost universal in their opinion of the crucifixion regardless of their religious background. Reza Aslan for example is a historian who happens to be Muslim, but as a professional qualified historian who has studied this topic he agrees that Jesus existed, and was crucified by the Romans. I wouldn't expect you to know this of course because you are afraid to read books.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
fantôme profane;3780978 said:
I'm not really sure what you do/don't believe regarding the NT, perhaps you can make a brief description of that so as to make the debating more coherent.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;3780978 said:
I'm not going to engage those who can't resist personal insult.
I will if you will. :yes:
First understand that I am a naturalistic pantheists, in otherwords an atheist. So I do not believe the NT is the "word of God", nor am I likely to accept any claims of the miraculous without extraordinary evidence. I believe the NT is problematic as a historical source, but that does not make it worthless as a historical source. It certainly does not rise to the level of extraordinary evidence. However in some cases it along with other sources do rise to the level of sufficient evidence for common non miraculous events.
I believe that Jesus did exist, he had a relatively small following in his lifetime, he got into trouble with the Romans. He was either guilty of sedition against the Roman empire (which would be noble given the character of the Roman occupation), or he was falsely accused. Either way he was crucified by the Romans.
Of the fourteen books in the new testament that are believed to be written by Paul I believe at least some of them are deliberated forgeries, and one is simply miss-attributed to him. But still he was the author of more books in the NT than anybody else, and much of Christianity is based on his theology. I think Paul knew some but not much of the actual history of Jesus which is unfortunate. I also believe that Paul had a very skewed view of the history and person of Jesus, and his writings (the ones that really are his writings) should be taken with a grain of salt. But again that does not mean they should be ignored altogether. Like the testimony of anybody on any topic it can be evaluated for what is reasonable, what is self-serving, and what is just not believable.
I believe the four Gospels were written anonymously decades after the events the describe, in a different country and by people of a different culture in a different language. They were written by people who never knew Jesus, and likely never met anyone who knew Jesus. Still they provide a historical source that should be evaluate critically but not disregarded. The same goes for the other books of the NT.
I hope this was no too long, and I hope it was not to brief. And please let me know if you have any more specific questions.
Now, if you would please be kind enough to return the favour and tell us what your view of the NT is.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
a. I believe both 'mythers' and HJ'rs have valid arguments
b. Jesus to me is man i.e. NT narrative, and Deity
c. Doesn't bother me either way which arguments for or against NT narrative truth is more likely.
d. I'm open to the possibility of 'embellishments'.
e. I don't construct a "theory" outside of the logical sequence of the narrative.
f. Because of this, I am skeptical of non-Christian assumption/ presumption that the crucifixion took place...
why?...
Because it isn't the narrative. If we are supposing the narrative to be generally accurate, but with embellishments, then why assume a wildly fictional "addition" to the text. What's the point. The author could have simply re-written the narrative.
g. Considering how much fiction is actually assumed in the NT narrative, by many HJ'rs, why are they so intent on believing the "crucifixion". At what point do they simply say "I don't know, it seems mostly fiction'. Why are they even speculating on it?
h. I believe there was an early Church, with Essenic & Nazarene adherents, and this style of religion was maintained in early church progression. This is backed up by early descriptions of Christians.
I. The new religion changed in the empires to an extent, with the analysis of the early writings etc.
j. Over time different groups of belief became formalized, but they were not "created" out of whole cloth by reformers and teachers, this was a natural progression of expressing the different styles of Christianity always extant in the faith.
k. Basically, I don't have a horse in this race/argument theologically, it doesn't affect my beliefs either way.
b. Jesus to me is man i.e. NT narrative, and Deity
c. Doesn't bother me either way which arguments for or against NT narrative truth is more likely.
d. I'm open to the possibility of 'embellishments'.
e. I don't construct a "theory" outside of the logical sequence of the narrative.
f. Because of this, I am skeptical of non-Christian assumption/ presumption that the crucifixion took place...
why?...
Because it isn't the narrative. If we are supposing the narrative to be generally accurate, but with embellishments, then why assume a wildly fictional "addition" to the text. What's the point. The author could have simply re-written the narrative.
g. Considering how much fiction is actually assumed in the NT narrative, by many HJ'rs, why are they so intent on believing the "crucifixion". At what point do they simply say "I don't know, it seems mostly fiction'. Why are they even speculating on it?
h. I believe there was an early Church, with Essenic & Nazarene adherents, and this style of religion was maintained in early church progression. This is backed up by early descriptions of Christians.
I. The new religion changed in the empires to an extent, with the analysis of the early writings etc.
j. Over time different groups of belief became formalized, but they were not "created" out of whole cloth by reformers and teachers, this was a natural progression of expressing the different styles of Christianity always extant in the faith.
k. Basically, I don't have a horse in this race/argument theologically, it doesn't affect my beliefs either way.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Sorry brother.
I have already provided sources that show my statement to be factually supported.
There is plenty of evidence, more so then many historical characters. You MAY choose to throw the evidence out, but historians do not.
Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two widely accepted historical facts
Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.