Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[steeltoes]

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.

Paul never mentions a Jesus of Nazareth, nor gives one biographical detail of anyone from Galilee.

 

[outhouse]

Pauls attributed epistles exist, they have to be explained.

Nothing explains them as well as a Galilean who was martyred at Passover and deified by those who found his selfless act in the temple worth martyring. Mythology soon grew around the oral tradition.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

As I said, you can't use a book to prove itself.

There is no evidence for me to avoid.

 

[steeltoes]

As I said, you can't use a book to prove itself.

There is no evidence for me to avoid.

Exactly.

 

[steeltoes]

outhouse, Mythology soon grew around the oral tradition.

Wrong yet again. In order to explain the silence from the time Jesus lived and died until the time the gospels were finally written it was said that an oral tradition prevailed until these stories were written down, a Jesus of the gaps as it were. Now it appears that the author of gMark drew from his ancient scriptures, what we call the OT, to write a new story.

Well, the discovery of all these lines in gMark as coming from the OT rather than from oral tradition puts a bit of a damper on historical Jesus theory. Historical Jesus proponents are upset about it and are trying to downplay it but the problem is, is that it's there for all to see.

 

[nash8]

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.

I agree, there is definitely room for doubt. There is room for doubt in almost anything that happened in antiquity.

However, amongst scholarly circles this is not really the case as far as I know. If you believe otherwise, please list some antiquity scholars that do not believe that the crucifixion happened. There are some that don't, but it is definitely not the consensus.

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.

1. The scholars come to the conclusion that Jesus was crucified because it is attested to in four Gospel accounts the earliest believed to have been first written within 50 years of the supposed occurrence. Whether you disregard these accounts is your choice.

2. The crucifixion is attested to by 2 respected historians of the time, Tacticus and Josephus, and their attestations, while generally believed to have been altered, are generally believed to be based on statements actually made by the historians due to analyzation of writing styles, word usage, and many other criterion used to decide whether a document was actually written at the time period and by the writer in question.

3. There is a reference in the Talmud to Yeshu, who is a sorcerer and is sacrificed on the Eve of Passover.

4. Then there was a letter from Mara Bar-Serapion, a philosopher from Syria, who spoke of the execution of the King of the Jews.

You take all of this evidence and cross examine them with other writings made by the same writers that are believed to be true examples to see if the writing styles, word usage, and other linguistics used are similar. You also compare the timelines, events, leaders, and etc. and see if they match up with other accounts of the events, timelines, leaders, and etc. written by other confirmed sources.

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.

What exactly would constitute a "wildly fictional addition"?

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?

They do. Any decent antiquity scholar will tell you that we can never really know for a fact what happen in antiquity. Not just about Jesus, but about anything. They are speculating because they enjoy investigating and learning about the past. They examine the evidence we have for a given event(s) and they cross examine said evidence with other documents of the time.

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 totally agree with you on this. And in my opinion, this is the strongest evidence against a HJ. The accounts of early Gnostic Christian sects that denied the existence and subsequent crucifixion of Jesus.

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.

I agree that the religion changed according to a natural course within the Roman empire up to a certain point. Once Christianity became a decent force within the empire, I believe it changed course according to the whims of those that sought to use the religion as a power of control.

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

Click on the little numbers at the end of the information and it will tell you.

You can't 'debate' links anyway.

But you can debate the information contained in the links.

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.

Who??

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.

Just because you discard large volumes of material on the subject, doesn't mean that it's not evidence. What is your criterion for evidence?

 

[nash8]

. 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.

Two respected historians say that it happened, and authors wrote volumes saying that it happened. You can say that you don't believe the evidence is creditworthy, but you can't say that there is none.

Again I ask, what is sufficient evidence from antiquity for an event to have had happen?

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.

Really, how do you think we get information from antiquity? We decipher myths and stories and cross examine them from other sources to form a picture of the events that happened.

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.

How does a reason for a crucifixion imply the possibility of complete fiction? I would think it would be the opposite. If you have a description of an event that fits in with the general reasoning for other similar events, wouldn't that likely make it more plausible? If Jesus were have said to have been crucified for something that generally did not justify crucifixion, I would say that it would be less likely that it was true.

Basically, it is silly to think one "knows" what is true or fiction in a text that one claims is largely fiction.

In my opinion it is silly to think that one "knows" what is true or fiction in any aspect of life. I like to look at things from the viewpoint of my main man Socrates. What's your opinion on his existence by the way?

You haven't provided any evidence for the crucifixion, just that scholars believe it.

You have no credibility.

LOL, I don't know how many threads I have been apart of where Outhouse and many others have provided links and described the exact theories, methods, and means by which the HJ scholars have come to their conclusions. Outhouse and others, including myself, have also stated that there is no such thing as a "fact" of ancient history. There are just explanations that have more or less evidence to support them. It get's tiring repeating the same thing over and over again.

There is not enough known about crucifixions to say they all had deaths at X amount of time. Romans had a thousand ways to crucify someone.

I'm not saying X amount of time. I'm asking for a general guideline for time required for death. Did it usually happen quickly or take a long time? From everything that I've read, it seems that the crucifixion was "generally" not meant to be a quick death. It would seem that the crucifixion of Jesus would not have been one done in haste out of anger, but rather one done with precision, and not specifically to induce rapid death.

Crucifixion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion – Biblical Archaeology Society

Remember much of Pilate in the NT is thought to be fictitious according to scholars. It makes jesus seem more important if he is mentioned or tried, by the most important man in Israel at the time.

According to the all knowing Wiki, Ehrman states that the crucifixion occurs under the direct order of Pilate. Not saying Jesus actually went before Pilate, but at the least, Pilate knew that Jesus was being crucified.

Yes that is what it states. In different books there are both physical and spiritual accounts of resurrection.

Different communities had different opinions about this.

Remember these people were not trying to read these books literally. We, due to our culture, do not read these books in the same context as they did.

While important, they didn't care about the contradictions from one account to the next, they were not supposed to be history as much as a sort of a pseudohistory within theology.

Rhetoric was used to persuade readers, it was just how they all were trained.

I agree. And I'm not necessarily concerned about the contradiction. But it seems to me that the Rhetoric that you mention was definitely in use by the writer(s) of Luke to emphasize the physical resurrection. Otherwise, why use all the descriptive language to describe it? My question is, what do you believe was the purpose of the rhetoric used to portray a physical resurrection in Luke?

I am not denying the existence of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, just pointing out that it is scant. It is not a matter of historical certainty.

I have heard Christian apologists claim that there is more evidence for the ressurection than for any other event in the ancient world - but that is just another example of a little showmanship, it is not the truth either. Take Julies Ceaser for example, the evidence for his life and times would eclipse that for Jesus many times over.

It's only scant if you deny that the NT is evidence. If the NT is denied as evidence based on it's obvious mythical overtones, then much of the evidence for Ceaser and many other "God Leaders" must be discarded as well, as many "valid" historians wrote "historical" accounts of them from the viewpoint of them as Gods.
Not trying to argue that there's more evidence for Jesus than Caeser, just saying, a lot of "valid" historical evidence is written from a mythical point of view. It just happens that the NT is part of a religious ideology that people hold passionate views on.
And in all honesty, nothing is historically certain. Even things that happen in recent history. Just check out John Frum (found out about him doing MJ research lol).

Aramaic. Bar=son of and Abba=Father. Maybe Jesus Barabbas was an Aramaic speaking Galilean revolutionary. I understand that Josephus's use of the word 'bandit' = Revolutionary type.

Sounds legit to me. Do you know anything about the commonality of the surname of Barabba(s) in Jewish/Aramaic families of that time period?

I'm open minded about all of this.
A 5-6 hour crucifixion could have been survived, in fact Josephus appealed on behalf of three of his friends who had been convicted (forget what) and were being crucified. They were taken down and one of them survived.

Indeed. And I've discussed Roman medical procedures for conformation of death with members whom I respect on this forum, and from what I gathered, they were not that "thorough". Plus if Joseph of Arimethea, was truly a rich trader, and a friend of Jesus, I think it could be safely assumed that Jesus would have had access to great medical attention.

Cool....... Maybe, just maybe the senior guard was bribed to report Jesus as dead and then Pilate instructed the taking down and the leg-breaking of the two others to end them quickly.

The possibilities are many.

You make a valid point. I'm sure a small sum of money could have persuaded a Roman guard to take a dead-looking Jesus down a little bit early.

And upon further speculation of you original point concerning Pilate, I actually find it quite interesting. I have a theory, albeit a wild one, that Jesus was secretly respected as somewhat of a stoic sage, by most of the educated class of Romans, Jews, and other Hellenized groups, which would have most likely included Pilate. Most of the higher education of the time was done according to stoic philosophy, and in my opinion, Jesus demonstrated many of the older ideals of Stoicism ideally. Maybe Pilate was one of these people, and granted some type of secret leniency for ole' Jman. Contrarily, I also believe this was one of the reasons Jesus was chosen as the centerpiece for a Jewish Hellenistic religious/philosophical movement.

 

[nash8]

Just a quick comment. This is based on the time line given in the Gospels. But there are conflicting timelines in the Gospels. And the timelines that are give are highly symbolic and full of religious allusions. For this reason I find those timelines highly suspect. The Romans would crucify someone until that person was dead, period. The Romans did not take people off the cross for a holiday.

Not saying they took someone off the cross for a holiday. And actually, Roman's did take people off the cross upon request before they were dead. I believe Old badger already posted a reference of this from Josephus.

Secondly, how thorough do you think Roman soldiers were in confirming that someone was actually dead? My guess is not very.

Third, how much money do you think it would have cost to have a Roman soldier remove a person from the cross early after "confirming" they were dead?

Lastly, it seems to me as if all the timelines in the Bible actually correspond somewhat All of the verses seem to state a timeline between noon and dusk. I actually think their correspondence actually makes it less believable considering it's the Bible lol. Then you have to consider the calculation of time of day in that time period.

Even with that, how can a timeline be symbolic and full of religious allusions? The events that occur within the timeline, yes, but the actual timeline. As far as I am aware, there are no prophecies or religious references to a noon to dusk timeline.

It is also interesting to note the correlation of visible lunar eclipse in Jerusalem, that corresponds to the time Jesus might have been crucified. A later addition, maybe, but interesting nonetheless.

Of course I am picking and choosing what I believe. But I also gave two reasons for why I have made that choice. I do not believe that it is just as likely that Jesus survived crucifixion. There are no historical precedents for that. I am not going to apologize for applying reason.

Actually Old Badger cited one described by Josephus.

 

[nash8]

THERE ARE REASONS AS TO WHY, THEOLOGICALLY, 'CRUCIFIXION SCENARIO COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE NARRATIVE.

Why?

MUCH OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY DID NOT PLACE IMPORTANCE ON THE CRUCIFIXION, IT IS DIFFICULT EVEN TO TELL HOW THAT IMPORTANCE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE MAINSTREAM

The importance of the crucifixion came into prominence when Iranaeus wrote his refutations of the Gnostic sects claiming direct knowledge given to them by Jesus. Iranaeus also began to develop the Ransom atonement theory that place much more emphasis on the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, than did the moral influence theory that placed more emphasis on the ideology and positive actions of Jesus' life.

GREAT, SO WHAT DOES RESURRECTION INDICATE, WHAT DOES LACK OF RECORDS OF SAID CRUCIFIXION INDICATE, WHAT DOES EARLY CHURCH BELIEF IN OTHER FORMS OF JESUS AND NON-CRUCIFIXION/OR RESURRECTION INDICATE.

Two people that are considered the greatest historians of their era stated that Jesus was crucified, and are considered authentic by historians.

Some gnostic sects of early Christianity did believe in a solely spiritual Jesus, however this does not represent the entirety of the gnostic sects, and you must also realize that Gnosticism, although by different names, existed and believed in a spiritual lifeforce that was akin to the "Christ Conciousness" we see in some new age movements today, before Christianity was even created.

Secondly, you must also realize that the Christian movement, most likely would not have been prominent enough at the end of the first century for historians of that era to donate major time to it. There were around 40 churches over the Roman empire at the end of 1st century. Considering that Christianity was most likely relatively secret at the time, considering the persecution by roman authorities, 40 churches could of constituted as little as 4000 people over an area that populated millions. The end of the first century, beginning of the 2nd, when Josephus and Tacticus wrote, is when Christianity would have started to become prominent, thus the mentioning of their customs, and the supposed beginning of the religion.

HOW ARE YOU REACHING THESE "CONCLUSIONS", BY WHIM? BY FANCY? HOW ARE YOU CREATING A "BELIEVABLE NARRATIVE OUT OF TEXT YOU YOURSELF ARE DECLARING WILDLY FICTIONAL, WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOUR SPECULATIONS?

Analyzation of correlation between other historical documents, that state similar events that happened. AKA, Romans crucified rebel leaders that they wanted to make examples of. Therefore, it is likely that Jesus, being perceived as a possible rebel leader, would have likely been crucified.

IF, ACCORDING TO YOU, AUTHORSHIP OF THE NT IS HIGHLY DUBIOUS, WHY ARE WE TO BELIEVE THE GENERAL STORIES PRESENTED AT ALL?

Analyzation of other historical documents that correlate events that were likely to occur at the same timer period. Discernment of common use of rhetoric of the time period by analyzation of other historical documents known as being fictional or historical, to compare writing styles in order to decide which parts of the NT are in rhetorical language of the time, and which are parts are written in a more historical type of language.

Hi.........

There is a historical report of a reprieve for three crucified convicts, one of these survived. I forget which doc written by Josephus but can dig it up if you wish.

You always come through in the clutch Badger.

Remember, this would all depend on how badly a person was beaten, as to if they could hold themselves up enough to breath.

Agreed

We really do not trust the accounts provided as far as how long he was up there.

Why?

Some tied to a pole.
Some impaled through the groin area and planted in the ground looking much like a human corndog.
Some to a T shape
Read the wiki link on it for a better description.

I did, and it seems as though they're were generally different types of crucifixion in different circumstances. It seems as though in the case of Jesus, haste would have not been necessary, and more time would have been taken to ensure more embarrassment and a slower death, considering the venue in which he was being crucified. What is your opinion on the manner in which Jesus would have been crucified.

A peasant trouble maker would not need a trial, nor go all the way to the top.

Caiaphas and Pilate had better and more important things to do

Ehrman seems to say that "Jesus crucifixion under direct order of Pilate is the most certain element about him." It seems to me that implies that Ehrman thought Pilate had some direct awareness of Jesus' crucifixion.

Garbage.

Why

That book is viewed as massive amounts of rhetoric and as a added layer on top of a historical core with heavy use of fictional additions.

Again, the early movement had many different views depending on where you lived. There was no orthodoxy.

Again, it seems to me that the emphasis/insistence on Jesus' physical definition was most definitely rhetoric. I'm asking your opinion on what the purpose would have been. And if not used as rhetoric to imply some ulterior meaning, then why include it at all? Especially when Mark does not include any such reference, and from what I gathered, is generally believe to be one of the main sources for Luke.

What footnote?

By footnote I meant the small section dedicated to Christianity, and specifically Jesus, by Tacticus and Josephus. They are two confirmations of the historicity of Jesus by two of the most respected historians of the era, and are generally agreed by historians to be authentic, or at the least to be based on authentic passages. I also argue that the reason that there are not more references to Jesus and/or Christianity was not prominent enough at the end of the first century to be talked about yet.

 

[oldbadger]

As I said, you can't use a book to prove itself.

There is no evidence for me to avoid.

Hi Bunyip....

Forget Paul..... with regard to proof of Jesus.
He might be useful with regard to throwing some light on to followers and disciples. Forget him.....

But the synoptics aren't really books....... they are compilations of reports. So they're like statements, and although a statement can't prove itself we use them all the time to present evidence........ for juries etc to consider.

So you can reject the reports.......... do you reject the reports? If so, what would you like to do next? There's no point in rejecting them rtoday, tomorrow, etc.... you only need to make that decision once, surely?

Many of us are still thinking hard about it, and by 'us' I don't mean the members who locked onto a positive (or negative) verdict yonks ago and just keep churning it out like a stuck gramophone..... they need to do something else as well!

I still think that there is enough in G-Mark to show that J was real, and the position (not the text) of Josephus's para about J suggests J's authenticity. The crucifixion? There probably was a crucifixion..... but whose crucifixion?

 

[nash8]

Another argument from ignorance. You don't know why therefore it must have happened. Another conclusion based on fallacious reasoning.

I am not arguing. I am asking you a question. Why, in your opinion, did Tacticus and Josephus write those sections on Christianity, the life of Jesus, and his subsequent crucifixion?

My opinion is that they wrote those sections because they believed Jesus existed and was crucified. I can't conclude any other scenario, thus I was asking you your opinion to see if you could present a new conclusion, as well as evidence as to why you came to this conclusion, so that maybe I could learn something new.

Although this is a debate forum, I also come here to learn, so I usually try to ask as many questions, as opinions stated.

I don't need an hypothesis to explain no witnesses. No one that wrote about Jesus ever met the guy. What's to explain here? There were no witnesses to the crucifixion. So, what of it? You might need an hypothesis if you are trying to prove something about the crucifixion but I on the other hand have nothing to prove. People eventually began to believe the gospel story as actual and real events, just as people still do to this very day. I don't have to believe that the story is true, I need a reason for that to happen.

How many people do you think cared enough, and were educated enough, at the time of Jesus' crucifixion to write about it? I hold the opinion that Jesus' crucifixion did not become prominent enough by word of mouth for anyone to write about until, at the least, a few years after his resurrection. This is when the Gospels began to be written. I believe the earliest fragment we have dates to around 50 AD or so, which would be around 20 years after Jesus crucifixion. This would still be well within the time frame that people who knew Jesus directly could be interviewed in order to write down their version of who he was and what he did.
The ability to write was not common in these times, and considering Christianity was generally a religion for the poor, I doubt the people Jesus hung around with would have been able to write themselves. It would have only been after word got out of his story, that interested parties would have had the chance to gather information and possibly find people that met Jesus in order to write their story.
Lastly, I don't think the people that wrote the gospels sought to just imply historical facts. I believe they sought to pass on ideals, values, and basically a religion. I also believe the early church sought to promote the moral influence theory more so than the atonement theory. They sought to get people to act better towards one another, to love one another. But considering the times and even human nature today, people tend to follow a charismatic story that is exciting and fun to follow rather than a historical story, that directly portrays desirable moral qualities.
Would you rather watch a historical documentary about a guy who got crucified trying to teach people how to love one another, OR a movie about a bad-***, miracle working demigod who fought the man, who tried to take him out, but who ended up coming back from the dead and taking **** over? Both movies portray the same events and express the same moral lessons. Which one would you rather watch?
Finally, all of the scholars that promote the non-existence of Jesus and subsequently his crucifixion offer a replacement hypothesis. Mainly, the correlation between pre-existing myths and the lack of evidence. Why do you feel that you don't need to present a replacement hypothesis as well?

@nash8

Buddy, I don't need an alternative hypkthesis other than that there were plenty of breakaway sects at the time.

That's it.

That explains the evidence in questiin just as well as your hypothesis.

At least you propose an alternate hypothesis.

So how, in your opinion, does the existence of other breakaway sects at the same time explain the evidence? How does it explain 2 generally recognized as authentic quotes from respected historians, and pages upon pages of writing documenting the life of a man name Jesus who was crucified? Why did none of these other breakaway sects take the place of Christianity?

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

Why does the length of time after the event happened cause it to be worthless?

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.

I am starting another thread listing HJ evidence vs. MJ evidence... you should check it out.

 

[nash8]

Wrong yet again. In order to explain the silence from the time Jesus lived and died until the time the gospels were finally written it was said that an oral tradition prevailed until these stories were written down, a Jesus of the gaps as it were. Now it appears that the author of gMark drew from his ancient scriptures, what we call the OT, to write a new story.

Well, the discovery of all these lines in gMark as coming from the OT rather than from oral tradition puts a bit of a damper on historical Jesus theory. Historical Jesus proponents are upset about it and are trying to downplay it but the problem is, is that it's there for all to see.

Finally some good information coming from someone other than Badger. Where can I learn more about the analysis of gMark creating a new story from the OT?

 

[oldbadger]

Now it appears that the author of gMark drew from his ancient scriptures, what we call the OT, to write a new story.

Well, the discovery of all these lines in gMark as coming from the OT rather than from oral tradition puts a bit of a damper on historical Jesus theory. Historical Jesus proponents are upset about it and are trying to downplay it but the problem is, is that it's there for all to see.

.......authors..... G-Mark was an edition of reports. OK?

Now...... those lines from the OT.....we can prove them, and then remove them. Any evangelical 'bits'..... remove them...... then start to work from there.

Crosson does this, and in the case of Josephus' paragragh about Jesus he removed all the text as 'unsure'. All he was left with was a position of where the text was placed. Now, evangelists would almost certainly have placed this para adjacent to the reports about JtB, but this para ain't there..... it's adjacent to reports about other revolutionaries (can't think of the two names just now)..... the right place to put such a report. Ergo....... J is probably genuine because of the position of the para, even if the writing is suspect...... Now that's investigation in motion.

We need to start removing junk out of G-Mark. Then we look again. But there's no point in Pro-debaters and No-debaters standing in the investigation circles shouting 'I told you!'.... 'told you' ...... Yes it is..... No it isn't etc..... because they're not taking part in the investigation/search process.

 

[Bunyip]

I agree, there is definitely room for doubt. There is room for doubt in almost anything that happened in antiquity.

However, amongst scholarly circles this is not really the case as far as I know. If you believe otherwise, please list some antiquity scholars that do not believe that the crucifixion happened. There are some that don't, but it is definitely not the consensus.

You are contradictiing yourself. Is there room for almost anything - how can you exclude the crucifixion?

1. The scholars come to the conclusion that Jesus was crucified because it is attested to in four Gospel accounts the earliest believed to have been first written within 50 years of the supposed occurrence. Whether you disregard these accounts is your choice.

I'm not disregarding them. I'm asking for extra biblical corroberation.

2. The crucifixion is attested to by 2 respected historians of the time, Tacticus and Josephus, and their attestations, while generally believed to have been altered, are generally believed to be based on statements actually made by the historians due to analyzation of writing styles, word usage, and many other criterion used to decide whether a document was actually written at the time period and by the writer in question.

Neither account actually identifies Jesus.

3. There is a reference in the Talmud to Yeshu, who is a sorcerer and is sacrificed on the Eve of Passover.

No mention of crucifixion there.

4. Then there was a letter from Mara Bar-Serapion, a philosopher from Syria, who spoke of the execution of the King of the Jews.

Again no identification of Jesus.

You take all of this evidence and cross examine them with other writings made by the same writers that are believed to be true examples to see if the writing styles, word usage, and other linguistics used are similar. You also compare the timelines, events, leaders, and etc. and see if they match up with other accounts of the events, timelines, leaders, and etc. written by other confirmed sources.

Sure and it doesn't add up to much.

What exactly would constitute a "wildly fictional addition"?



They do. Any decent antiquity scholar will tell you that we can never really know for a fact what happen in antiquity. Not just about Jesus, but about anything. They are speculating because they enjoy investigating and learning about the past. They examine the evidence we have for a given event(s) and they cross examine said evidence with other documents of the time.

My point exactly. There is no scholarly certainty on this point.

I totally agree with you on this. And in my opinion, this is the strongest evidence against a HJ. The accounts of early Gnostic Christian sects that denied the existence and subsequent crucifixion of Jesus.



I agree that the religion changed according to a natural course within the Roman empire up to a certain point. Once Christianity became a decent force within the empire, I believe it changed course according to the whims of those that sought to use the religion as a power of control.



Click on the little numbers at the end of the information and it will tell you.



But you can debate the information contained in the links.



Who??



Just because you discard large volumes of material on the subject, doesn't mean that it's not evidence. What is your criterion for evidence?

I'm accepting tiny fragments of material, not discarding a word.

 

[nash8]

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

I agree with this assertation.

You are contradictiing yourself. Is there room for almost anything - how can you exclude the crucifixion?

I'm not. There is definitely reason to doubt the crucifixion. There is reason to doubt everything actually, not just historical events. There is room to doubt reality, especially considering all the nonsense coming from quantum physics lol. I'm just stating that I believe their is sufficient evidence to believe that it is more likely that Jesus lived and was crucified, than there is evidence than he did not live and/or was not crucified.

Neither account actually identifies Jesus.

Actually, the Josephus reference directly identifies Jesus. The Tacitus reference doesn't directly mention the name Jesus, but it does mention that a man named Christ was killed by order of Pilate.

The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII - Wikisource, the free online library

No mention of crucifixion there.

Yes, but it does mention that a man named Jesus was hanged. I'm not familiar with the usage of the word hanged in 2nd century Hebrew, but I'm sure some work could be/has been done to see whether hanged could be used as an alternative to crucified.

Again no identification of Jesus.

This is true, this one is definitely the most ambiguous, but does mention the death of the King of the Jews, which is a term used for Jesus in the Gospels. In your opinion, who else would be considered the wise King of the Jews?

Sure and it doesn't add up to much.

You are entitled to your opinion. Two references from respected historians that have been severely scrutinized, sounds pretty legit to me considering the evidence we have for similar characters in antiquity.

My point exactly. There is no scholarly certainty on this point.

In all honesty there is no scholarly certainty on anything of antiquity. But the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was baptized by JtB, and was crucified. Even the MJ scholars admit that this is the mainstream consensus of NT scholars.

I'm accepting tiny fragments of material, not discarding a word.

The Gospels are not tiny fragments of material. Why can't the Gospels be used to confirm the Josephus reference?

 

[Bunyip]

I agree with this assertation.



I'm not. There is definitely reason to doubt the crucifixion. There is reason to doubt everything actually, not just historical events. There is room to doubt reality, especially considering all the nonsense coming from quantum physics lol. I'm just stating that I believe their is sufficient evidence to believe that it is more likely that Jesus lived and was crucified, than there is evidence than he did not live and/or was not crucified.



Actually, the Josephus reference directly identifies Jesus. The Tacitus reference doesn't directly mention the name Jesus, but it does mention that a man named Christ was killed by order of Pilate.

The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII - Wikisource, the free online library



Yes, but it does mention that a man named Jesus was hanged. I'm not familiar with the usage of the word hanged in 2nd century Hebrew, but I'm sure some work could be/has been done to see whether hanged could be used as an alternative to crucified.



This is true, this one is definitely the most ambiguous, but does mention the death of the King of the Jews, which is a term used for Jesus in the Gospels. In your opinion, who else would be considered the wise King of the Jews?




You are entitled to your opinion. Two references from respected historians that have been severely scrutinized, sounds pretty legit to me considering the evidence we have for similar characters in antiquity.



In all honesty there is no scholarly certainty on anything of antiquity. But the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was baptized by JtB, and was crucified. Even the MJ scholars admit that this is the mainstream consensus of NT scholars.




The Gospels are not tiny fragments of material. Why can't the Gospels be used to confirm the Josephus reference?

Well they do confirm it. Josephus has only a handfful of words on the matter.

All I am saying is that it is not much evidence.

I agree that all knowledge of antiquity is uncertain, however the body of evidence for the life of Julius Ceaser for example is truly vast - whilst that for the historicity of the crucifixion is nothing but a few fragmentary references.

Scholars are pretty certain that Julius Ceaser lived and the details of his death. And of course that certainty is drawn from hundreds of sources of evidence - enough to fill many volumes of nice thick history books.

The evidence for the historicity of Julius Ceaser IS something that there is a scholarly consensus upon - the evidence is overwhelming.

For the crucifixion and life of Jesus, you have a few words from a century later - and all together (even if you ignore the great controversy over the relevant part of Josephus) enough information to write a single short paragraph.

Hence the evidence for the historicity of the crucifixion is not enough to claim it to be known to be historical.

I am not denying the existence or veracity of any of the evidence for the crucifixion, just pointing out that there is little of it.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

Impaling someone on the torture stake was the methods ancient Romans used to execute lawbreaking people.According to Bible-Jesus executed exactly in this way.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

According to the all knowing Wiki, Ehrman states that the crucifixion occurs under the direct order of Pilate. Not saying Jesus actually went before Pilate, but at the least, Pilate knew that Jesus was being crucified.

I'm curious: Why do you take Ehrman's word for that? Why not take the opinion of an historian who states that Pilate would not have bothered with a nobody like Jesus?

 

[fantome profane]

Even with that, how can a timeline be symbolic and full of religious allusions? The events that occur within the timeline, yes, but the actual timeline. As far as I am aware, there are no prophecies or religious references to a noon to dusk timeline.

The Gospel of John refers to Jesus as "the lamb of God", and this has become a common idea of Jesus among Christians. John's timeline has Jesus dying on the cross at exactly the same time the priests in the temple were sacrificing the lambs for the passover meal. This timeline seems highly symbolic and full of religious allusions.

The Gospel of Mathew has Jesus dying after the passover, so that the last supper is the passover meal. This adds resonance to the story of the last supper.

Both timelines cannot be true, but they can both be false. I find them both highly suspect.


I also find it doubtful that a Roman guard could so easily be bought off. Keeping in mind that if he got caught he could very well find himself up on a cross. How much money do you think it would cost to get a guard to risk his life? And could this be accomplished by just paying off one guard or would it take several?

And If Jesus did survive, what did he do then? Did he just make a few appearences to his friends and then flee the country? Did he abandon the Jews and the cause he "nearly died" for? Did he just leave "God's Kingdom" in the hands of the Romans?

I suppose his survival is possible, but I just find it more likely that he simply died.

 

[outhouse]

Why does the length of time after the event happened cause it to be worthless?


.

Bceause it was somthing like 200 years after, how accurate could it be?