Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Desert Snake]

So were all the gospels.

"pick & choosem".

The thing is, we also have to consider the non-unified beliefs of early Christianity.

 

[steeltoes]

Why would a Hellenistic sect in the Diaspora start claiming a Galilean peasant Jew was their savior ?

That you don't know why they would make such a claim is an argument from ignorance. You don't know why so therefore Jesus is historical. Same fallacious reasoning the YEC's use all the time.

And not just one sect, many communities in different locations all write about Their version of what happened?

There is only one version of what happened, the gospel writers were reliant on gMark for their story. As with the YEC's, you don't know how Bible stories were put together.

Why did Paul write about this one Galilean?

Again, show us where any of the epistle writers mention a Jesus from Nazareth or Galilee. I know you can't.

Originally Posted by Bunyip



- OTHER THAN Tacitus and Josephus,

outhouse, Combined with the gospels they are enough evidence.

Sure, throw the words out there such as Tacitus, Josephus, and the gospels as if that means something. For a beleiver that might be all that is required but there are skeptics on this forum that actually read and analyze these writings.

 

[steeltoes]

So were all the gospels.

Exactly. Skeptics have noticed that problem while true believers declare that anything goes in ancient times.

 

[steeltoes]

NO

I am simply asking you to explain it, explain the evidence, and your ignorance to the topic at hand has now been played out with your silence.


Paul is evidence
Gospels are evidence
Historians of antiquity are evidence


Good or bad, accurate or inaccurate, fact or fiction, reality or mythology it is evidence FACTUALLY in place, that YOU have to deal with.

OR finds another topic you think you can dip your toes into, and tell me what the bottom of the sea looks like :slap:

This appears exactly and precisely the argument we have come to expect from the YEC's. Just throw the words out there such as Paul, Gospels, historians, that's evidence and that should settle it, with a snide remark thrown in for good measure just to be sure.

 

[steeltoes]

Jesus could very well be historical for all we know but I and I'm sure others would like someone other than one that argues like a YEC to step up to the plate. Saying the words Josephus or Tacitus or what Paul wrote just doesn't cut it. Tell us exactly what they say that has you convinced. Also, why would anyone make it up is not an argument other than a fallacious one from ignorance. I don't know why someone would make it all up so therefore it must be true.

Same goes for embarrassment criteria, we don't know why the authors would write about something that would be embarrassing to them, therefore the story must be true, it's no better than an argument from ignorance, in fact it's much the same thing.

So please, could someone present something reasonable? Oh, that all the scholars believe is not an argument either.

Anyone?

 

[Bunyip]

Combined with the gospels they are enough evidence.

No, I'm afraid they are not. Tacitus and Josephus contain only very brief mentions and little specific detail.

It is stunning that you think anyone need an 'alternative hypothesis' to explain the almost detail free mentions in the works of two foreign historians a generation later.

You imagine that the lack of an alternate hypothesis is the best evidence for the historicity of the crucifixion, and yet of course there is nothing to explain.

explain the evidence. I think you have comprehensive issues, you don't seem to understand any of this coming or going.





Dancing around the subject only displays your ignorance on the topic.



Paul is evidence, explain why he wrote what he did.


Gospels are evidence, explain why different communities wrote what they did.

Historians of antiquity are evidence, explain why they wrote what they did.


EXPLAIN why not one person or community questioned his existence.

Why would I need to explain that? You make a false claim, and demand that I explain it - maybe cut all of the insults to my knowledge and just think through your posts a bit harder?

Please explain how YOU could validate your claim that not one person questioned Jesus' existence? How could you know that? Answer: You couldn't.

 

[outhouse]

Why would I need to explain that?.

You cant.

You cant answer a single question to support your view.


If you cannot explain the evidence, your no different then a YEC making false claims against evolution.


Its called supporting your position.

 

[steeltoes]

You cant.

You cant answer a single question to support your view.


If you cannot explain the evidence, your no different then a YEC making false claims against evolution.


Its called supporting your position.

You're the one that is making the claim that what we read in The Bible is true just as the YEC does. You are not fooling anyone here, your arguments for the The Bible being true are just as fallacious as are the YEC's.

Who do you think you are kidding besides yourself?

 

[steeltoes]

No, I'm afraid they are not. Tacitus and Josephus contain only very brief mentions and little specific detail.

It is stunning that you think anyone need an 'alternative hypothesis' to explain the almost detail free mentions in the works of two foreign historians a generation later.

You imagine that the lack of an alternate hypothesis is the best evidence for the historicity of the crucifixion, and yet of course there is nothing to explain.


Why would I need to explain that? You make a false claim, and demand that I explain it - maybe cut all of the insults to my knowledge and just think through your posts a bit harder?

Please explain how YOU could validate your claim that not one person questioned Jesus' existence? How could you know that? Answer: You couldn't.

Some people are so easily convinced of what they read in The Bible as being true that they don't hear a word about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in what they are reading, if in fact they are reading. Like the gospels, Josephus and Tacitus are late, not to mention all the problems with accepting them at face value as our poster does. Unfortunately no one is stepping up to the plate and offering valid reasons for Jesus being historical, it would be a pleasant change.

 

[allright]

worthless, it was written way to far after the events happened.

hogwash

With all the persecution Jews have gone through for crucifying Jesus
if the Jews knew Jesus never existed or was never crucified they would be
proclaiming it since day one to today
Instead they confirm he was crucified and they did it in their own writings

 

[Bunyip]

You cant.

You cant answer a single question to support your view.

That is dishonest. I can and have ansewred all of your questions. Not giving the answer you want is not the same as not answering.

If you cannot explain the evidence, your no different then a YEC making false claims against evolution.

I can and have explained the evidence, several times over.

Its called supporting your position.

Exactly!!!!! Eureka!

Now please suport your position - so far, other than the bible, you have a few words in Tacitus and Josephus (which you should at least read please) and nothing more other than posturing,

Tacutus and Josephus are not enough.

All you have is corroborating reports from a generation after the events that record a holy man who was later crucified, and that is about it. No name, no dates, no details.

 

[Bunyip]

Some people are so easily convinced of what they read in The Bible as being true that they don't hear a word about all the contradictions and inconsistencies in what they are reading, if in fact they are reading. Like the gospels, Josephus and Tacitus are late, not to mention all the problems with accepting them at face value as our poster does. Unfortunately no one is stepping up to the plate and offering valid reasons for Jesus being historical, it would be a pleasant change.

The strawman outhouse keeps repeating is that we are denying the evidence for the crucifixion.

I am not denying the evidence for the crucifixion, in fact even if you accept every word of Josephus and Tacitus as rock solid reliable - they STILL don't constitute much of a case.

So far the case for the historicity of the crucifixion boils down to;

1. Well all scholars agree, so there!
2. Unless you can explain the evidence we haven't actually got better than we can - then I win so shut up!
3. Your stupid!

While the case that the historicity of the crucifixion has not been proven boils down to;

1. Where is the proof?
2. No really, I heard you say that all scholars agree - but upon what evidence?
3. Well thanks for that, maybe I am stupid - and now for the evidence please?

 

[outhouse]

That is dishonest. I can and have ansewred all of your questions. .

No


You have not started.


Explain why Paul was writing what he did when he did.

He knew he was living within a decade of Jesus death. Why and when is something you only hand wave away.

 

[outhouse]

1. Well all scholars agree, so there!

Nope


All the evidence by Paul alone takes care of that.

Then we have multiple communities writing about him.

And we have communities that are not questioning his existence. That is also evidence

 

[Bunyip]

No


You have not started.


Explain why Paul was writing what he did when he did.

He knew he was living within a decade of Jesus death. Why and when is something you only hand wave away.

I have explained this before. To confirm the historicity of an event from the bible - you need extra biblical evidence.

I don't have to explain Paul, because Paul is not an extra biblical source, nor was he a witness, or known to have even met any witnesses - he was not yet alive.

I am not 'hand waving Paul away', I am asking what othe evidence there is outside of scripture and the few amorphous words in Tacitus and Josephus.

I notice by the way that you have not explained why the Jews, who supposedly witnessed these events were not convinced - and they were right there!

 

[Bunyip]

1. Well all scholars agree, so there!

Nope


All the evidence by Paul alone takes care of that.

I repeat WE ARE ASKING FOR EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE, YOU CANNOT USE THE BIBLE TO PROVE ITS OWN CLAIMS.

Then we have multiple communities writing about him.

And we have communities that are not questioning his existence. That is also evidence

No, that is not evidence. You have multiple communities who write about and believe in tens of thousands of different religious notions.

 

[steeltoes]

I have explained this before. To confirm the historicity of an event from the bible - you need extra biblical evidence.

I don't have to explain Paul, because Paul is not an extra biblical source, nor was he a witness, or known to have even met any witnesses - he was not yet alive.

I am not 'hand waving Paul away', I am asking what othe evidence there is outside of scripture and the few amorphous words in Tacitus and Josephus.

I notice by the way that you have not explained why the Jews, who supposedly witnessed these events were not convinced - and they were right there!

Paul was not a witness nor did he know of any witnesses other than for that of a risen Christ, but he was alive, and a master of all things woo woo, maybe you are thinking of Josephus, he was not born until after Jesus would have supposedly died.

 

[Bunyip]

Paul was not a witness nor did he know of any witnesses other than for that of a risen Christ, but he was alive, and a master of all things woo woo, maybe you are thinking of Josephus, he was not born until after Jesus would have supposedly died.

Thanks for the correction. I looked it up and most have his birth between 5BCE and 10 ACE

 

[steeltoes]

outhouse, And we have communities that are not questioning his existence. That is also evidence

If outhouse had a clue about how Christian writings were preserved over the many years he couldn't possibly make such a stupid statement. Anti Christian writings were destroyed, and any that we do have are implied through one sided Christian arguments. Monks preserved the Christian texts, does outhouse think that Christian monks would have preserved the nay sayers writings as well? Probably.

 

[outhouse]

WE ARE ASKING FOR EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE, .

YOU do not get to make the rules. It is simply avoiding the evidence.


Paul lived when Jesus lived, and wrote roughly 15 years later.


The NT is evidence, even if we called it poor, it is still evidence that needs to be explained.