Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Sabour]

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.

What happened to

"Could you post something credible???"

 

[outhouse]

What happened to

"Could you post something credible???"

Who are you, or who do you think you are? and what education do you have to discount a encyclopedia?

 

[Sabour]

Who are you, or who do you think you are? and what education do you have to discount a encyclopedia?

Isn't the question supposed to be who is putting the information on wikipedia?

 

[outhouse]

Isn't the question supposed to be who is putting the information on wikipedia?

I know him.

He also frequents this forum and is one of the most well read people I know.

His work is also open to change with proper sources.


NOW that doesnt change what was stated at wiki, it is correct, and that is why you cannot refute it :slap:

 

[Sabour]

I know him.

He also frequents this forum and is one of the most well read people I know.

His work is also open to change with proper sources.


NOW that doesnt change what was stated at wiki, it is correct, and that is why you cannot refute it :slap:

Well I thought you have problems with me the way you answered. I didn't know that you were the one providing the information on Wikipedia.

Anyways many historians do have the opposite point of view, and this is correct, so you can't refute it :slap:

 

[outhouse]

Anyways many historians do have the opposite point of view, and this is correct, so you can't refute it

Not on the crucifixion they do not. They have a complete consensus.

If you want to take the word of another religious apologist, and call him or her a scholar you can, but it carries no credibility, they would not be a credible scholar..

 

[outhouse]

I didn't know that you were the one providing the information on Wikipedia.

I did not make that claim.


If you dont like what was posted, try and refute it.


Post a credible scholar who states differently, if your so sure of yourself, there should be many for you to choose from

 

[Sabour]

I did not make that claim.


If you dont like what was posted, try and refute it.


Post a credible scholar who states differently, if your so sure of yourself, there should be many for you to choose from

Well I am not in a position to refute you now as I don't know your approach on the subject and at the current time I don't have time for a discussion.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well I am not in a position to refute you now as I don't know your approach on the subject and at the current time I don't have time for a discussion.

You can't 'debate' links anyway.

 

[Sabour]

You can't 'debate' links anyway.

Well sometimes I have crazy ideas, sometimes I think I can even debate a rock .... Sometimes I lose interest.

But on that subject, the evidence I subscribe too is different than any kind of evidence.

Let's not discuss that.

 

[outhouse]

Well I am not in a position to refute you now as I don't know your approach on the subject and at the current time I don't have time for a discussion.

Well at least you sort of admitted to having a baseless unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Sabour]

Well at least you sort of admitted to having a baseless unsubstantiated opinion.

Yeah, that is when you read only the first 9 words.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Why do you describe this as "wildly fictional"? This is a rather mundane event. This is something that we know happened to thousands of people during the Roman occupation. There is nothing miraculous or even strange about this event. It makes sense in the historical context.

And what "addition" to the text are you referring to?

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry brother.

I have already provided sources that show my statement to be factually supported.

No you haven't. You can show that others have made the same claim, but it remains false.

There are plenty of scholars who doubt the crucifixion. Jewish, secular, Islamic and Christian.

There is plenty of evidence, more so then many historical characters. You MAY choose to throw the evidence out, but historians do not.

I am not 'throwing out' any evidence, there just isn't much. A few words in Tacitus ajd Josephus is hardly a rock solid case.

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.

Sure, that is a common claim amongst US Christian apologists - it is of course false however.

 

[outhouse]

Sure, that is a common claim amongst US Christian apologists - it is of course false however.

You demand evidence, then make statements you cannot back up.

Apologist do not create credible history that scholarships adhere to, that makes your statement completely false.

There are plenty of scholars who doubt the crucifixion. Jewish, secular, Islamic and Christian.

Provide evidence, sources please.

By the way skip islam, we already know they dont carry any credibility in NT scholorships. Maybe you have some other biased people to bring to the table :slap:

 

[steeltoes]

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.

.




There is not a single shred of evidence in that entire article which indicates that the crucifixion happened. If it proves anything at all it is that the belief in a crucifixion is a faith belief held by many scholars.



.


Outhouse's bandwagon theory doesn't mean a thing, show us the actual evidence, not an article about scholarly parrots.

 

[outhouse]

Here is unbiased work. Try educating yourself on the topic before debating please.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

This will give you a good unbiased description of the current state of scholarships on the subject

 

[Bunyip]

You demand evidence, then make statements you cannot back up.

Apologist do not create credible history that scholarships adhere to, that makse your statement completely false.




Provide evidence, sources please.

By the way skip islam, we already know they dont carry any credibility in NT scholorships. Maybe you have some other biased people to bring to the table :slap:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Ahem,.......soooooo, you are saying that all scholars accept the historicity of the crucifixion - except for all of the scholars who don't? Like Moslem scholars, Jewish scholars, secular scholars and so on.

So, when you say that 'all of the scholars accept the historicity of the crucifixion', you are referring to only the scholars who are faithful to Christianity anyway - and excluding all those who are not.

Brilliant!

So I could say that all scholars agree that Pink Floyd is the greatest band ever, and when challenged on that claim do what you are doing and eliminate from the group 'all scholars' any scholars who do not think that Pink Floyd were the best band ever.

 

[outhouse]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Ahem,.......soooooo, you are saying that all scholars accept the historicity of the crucifixion - except for all of the scholars who don't? Like like Moslem scholars, Jewish scholars, secular scholars and so on.

So, when you say that 'all of the scholars accept the historicity of the crucifixion', you are referring to only the scholars who are faithful to Christianity anyway - and excluding all those who are not.

Brilliant!

So I could say that all scholars agree that Pink Floyd is the greatest band ever, and when challenged on that claim do what you are doing and eliminate from the group 'all scholars' any scholars who do not think that Pink Floyd were the best band ever.

Your taking things out of context out of sheer desperation.

Jesus has historicity, it is you who has to deal with it, not me.


Im saying leave your bias and poor methodology out of this thread. If you want to turn that into something else, its your fault.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why do you describe this as "wildly fictional"?

For many, the resurrection would be. That's part of the crucifixion narrative. You can't 'seperate' the story like that, makes no sense, it's too assumptive.

And what "addition" to the text are you referring to?

If you don't believe in the miracles in the NT , think it's filled with fiction, then of course much of the post crucifixion text is complete fiction.

The main issue is that HJ'rs are placing a 'reasonable' label to their speculations, without realizing this is not necessarily the case. There are reasons for crucifixion etc. scenario, hence the possibility of complete fiction there.
Basically, it is silly to think one "knows" what is true or fiction in a text that one claims is largely fiction.

Anyways, I've brought up these points before, we'll just have to wait until further argumentation/historical evidence is presented.