Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Bunyip]

Don't DEBATE what you don't have a clue about.

Indeed. You should learn to take your own advice on that point.

 

[nash8]

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.

His life didn't demand much recognition until about 20-30 years after his death. And when it did start to demand recognition, those who sought to recognize him, thought it more important to recognize him in a way that would convert people to his ideals, rather than provide a historical outline of his life. When this caught on, 50-100 years after his death, then it started to become necessary to begin documenting something of his life. But considering where he most likely came from, there probably wasn't that much to document.

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.

Julius Caeser was a much, much larger figure during the course of his own lifetime than Jesus ever was. Caeser was the leader of one of the largest empires the world has ever known. Jesus was the leader of a small gathering of peasant Jews from Galilee.

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.

The evidence that Jesus lived is enough to fill many volumes of nice thick history books as well. It is called the gospels. Historians consider these sources of evidence, you may not consider them credible evidence, and that is your opinion. However, they remain evidence nonetheless.

Even Price, one of the foremost proponents of a non-historical Jesus, admits that Jesus' historicity is the scholarly consensus.

"Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority."

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.

The Christian movement at the end of the first century could easily have been under 5000 members over the entire Roman empire. There simply was no reason for his contemporaries to record his life, and consequent death until the movement began to gain power. By this time, it would have been very difficult to gather any first hand information about what exactly happened.

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.

It is not necessarily the amount of evidence that determines whether something is historical or not in my opinion. It is the legitimacy of the evidence that determines the historicity. You can deny the legitimacy of the gospels due to their mythical, rhetoric nature, but that is simply the writing style that was used for the purpose it was written at the time it was written. The legitimacy of the Josephus and Tacitus reference are pretty well documented.

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?

I was just stating that in response to outhouse's statement that scholar's didn't think Pilate had any involvement in Jesus' resurrection. Ehrman is a respected NT scholar so I consider what he says of some value.

I personally believe that Jesus' movement was larger, or at least more prominent than most scholars say it was. And while Pilate probably did not interview Jesus as was said in the gospels, I think he would of had some type of say in the crucifixion of not only Jesus', but any Jew crucified and/or executed at or near the Passover festival.

The reason is, if you killed the wrong Jew at Passover, you risked starting a riot, which would then have stopped monetary flow, and would of required more resources being required to quell the riot. These are two things that Pilate did not want, so I think that he would at least of had some type of say, and at the least knowledge of who was being executed.

 

[nash8]

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.

John is very gnostic in nature to me, and uses very representative and symbolic language. Honestly, I don't even know how it was considered one of the gospels, and even included in the Canon at all. I would agree with your assertation.

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.

The timeline does not matter with regard to which day Jesus was crucified on with regard to how long he was on the cross. I'm not sure about John, but the rest of the gospels cover a 6-12 hour timespan, that is fairly consistent. Some say early morning, some say early afternoon, and some say early evening. Considering the tracking of the time of day in that time period, and the discrepencies between what would constitute each time, it's hard to say with any certainty what time it would have been. But the length of time is consistent regardless of what time that was.

I do find it interesting about the lunar eclipse theory. There is historical documentation of a lunar eclipse on a day that Jesus could have been crucified, and it would have been visible in Jerusalem after sunset. It could have been possible that a lunar eclipse would darken the sky, as mentioned in one of the gospels. However, I don't know if this is considered a later addition to the gospel or not.

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?

How did the Roman's certify that someone was dead on the cross? From what I've gathered, if they looked like they were dead, maybe a pulse check, then they were dead. I would say that this would usually be rectified by just leaving a person up there for an extremely long time, or by inflicting a fatal wound.

I don't think it would have been hard to take Jesus down rather quickly if he didn't have a detectable pulse, and he was subject to other torments. A spear wound per se. I think it would have been safely assumed that he was dead, if he wasn't moving or responding to stimulus. However he could of just been unconscious.

It would probably cost quite a pretty penny. But if Joseph of Arimethea was truly a rich trader, he probably would have had a pretty penny. And I don't think it would have been more than one guard, it just would have needed to be the right guard. Possibly the head guard of that particular area, that would instruct the peons to have Jesus taken down.

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.

I think that it would have been very possible that he spent time in Arabia, and other places in the East outside of the Roman empire. Galilee was on the edge of Roman controlled lands so I think it would have been easy for him to jump from outside of the Roman empire back to Jewish areas without much trouble.

I also think he would make appearances to certain people, other than the original apostles, that were deemed worthy and trustworthy enough to meet him in person. This is where the story of the "resurrection" began to surface.

I, personally, don't think he was fighting against the Romans as most scholars do. I think he saw Roman occupation as an inevitability, and as long as people were allowed to worship freely he didn't see a problem with it, or at least there was no forseable way to change it, as rebellion would have been futile.

What I think he was fighting was Jewish Hypocrisy. I think he had a problem with people like the moneychangers who were profiting greatly off the Jewish peasantry by requiring them to exchange the common currency for a Jewish currency in order to worship at the temple. Romans were already going to get there cut, but this currency exchange was almost primarily benefiting the Jewish aristocracy.

I also think he was fighting against the Jewish leaders of the time. He thought that the Jewish leaders of the time, Pharisees and Sadducees, were oppressing their own people in order to become rich, while at the same time keeping the true knowledge of the Jewish tradition to themselves (aka Kaballah) and other such practices. Hence his tirade against them in the gospels.

I think he saw Roman oppression as an inevitability, but one that the Jews could live relatively happy within. He, however, saw that Jewish oppression of their own people as an atrocity and one that could be avoided by empowering the people with knowledge that they did not need the Jewish religious/political to worship God, and they most definitely did not need to pay money to these leaders in order to worship God. He also sought to teach the Jewish people to treat one another kindly, regardless of their "sins", to work together in order to lead a better overall quality of life. I don't think this is a philosophy that the leaders of the Jewish community agreed with, as it would challenge their power.

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

What is the timeline where sources could be accurate? I think their still would have been a much larger supply of primary sources available at this point in time, up until about say about 325 A.D.

And as someone mentioned earlier, why would a Jewish source, who would most likely have been thrilled at the chance to deny Jesus' existence if it were true, include a reference like this. And I've seen the commentary that the reference was added in, but I find it hard to believe that a group as protective of their literature as the Jews, to have let one of their most prized works, be permanently altered by those outside the religion.

What you are claiming is far too vague. Be specific, quote exactly what these two historians say that has you convinced.

Josephus says that a man named Joseph was condemned to die on the cross by Pilate, and Tacitus says that the one named Christ, whom the group the Christians were named after, was condemned to death by Pilate.

 

[Bunyip]

His life didn't demand much recognition until about 20-30 years after his death. And when it did start to demand recognition, those who sought to recognize him, thought it more important to recognize him in a way that would convert people to his ideals, rather than provide a historical outline of his life. When this caught on, 50-100 years after his death, then it started to become necessary to begin documenting something of his life. But considering where he most likely came from, there probably wasn't that much to document.



Julius Caeser was a much, much larger figure during the course of his own lifetime than Jesus ever was. Caeser was the leader of one of the largest empires the world has ever known. Jesus was the leader of a small gathering of peasant Jews from Galilee.



The evidence that Jesus lived is enough to fill many volumes of nice thick history books as well. It is called the gospels. Historians consider these sources of evidence, you may not consider them credible evidence, and that is your opinion. However, they remain evidence nonetheless.

Wow, you just ignore whatever I say and repeat yourself.

Historians need extra biblical sources to determine the historicity of the NT. For the fourth time - it is not that I do not consider the gospels to be evidence. To confirm historicity you need EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.

Even Price, one of the foremost proponents of a non-historical Jesus, admits that Jesus' historicity is the scholarly consensus.

"Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority."



The Christian movement at the end of the first century could easily have been under 5000 members over the entire Roman empire. There simply was no reason for his contemporaries to record his life, and consequent death until the movement began to gain power. By this time, it would have been very difficult to gather any first hand information about what exactly happened.



It is not necessarily the amount of evidence that determines whether something is historical or not in my opinion. It is the legitimacy of the evidence that determines the historicity. You can deny the legitimacy of the gospels due to their mythical, rhetoric nature, but that is simply the writing style that was used for the purpose it was written at the time it was written. The legitimacy of the Josephus and Tacitus reference are pretty well documented.

For the fifth time. I am not denying the evidence of the gospels. And the legitimacy of Josephus is hotly contested. Josephus and Tacitus tell us very little anyway.

I was just stating that in response to outhouse's statement that scholar's didn't think Pilate had any involvement in Jesus' resurrection. Ehrman is a respected NT scholar so I consider what he says of some value.

I personally believe that Jesus' movement was larger, or at least more prominent than most scholars say it was. And while Pilate probably did not interview Jesus as was said in the gospels, I think he would of had some type of say in the crucifixion of not only Jesus', but any Jew crucified and/or executed at or near the Passover festival.

The reason is, if you killed the wrong Jew at Passover, you risked starting a riot, which would then have stopped monetary flow, and would of required more resources being required to quell the riot. These are two things that Pilate did not want, so I think that he would at least of had some type of say, and at the least knowledge of who was being executed.

Please at least read my comments before responding to me,

 

[oldbadger]

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?

..................... enough for a fat pension with holiday villa in Capri, plus extras

Yes...... difficult. One of the less strong possibilities, but still an outside possibility. I expect that soldiers had loads of scams and sidelines, just as our own (english) executioners did. I don't expect J's clothes were in very good condition but there's the report of soldiers 'gaming' for them.

But Pilate might not have wanted J dead. Jesus had shown so much charisma and dash with the crowds in the Temple that Pilate could well have been very interested in J as a possible pawn or lever in his dealings with the Chief Priest, who virtually RAN Jerusalem and Judea.

Pilate did not RUN Jerusalem, not did he dare to rule with too heavy a hand. He did not have that many Roman forces in Judea at all. The Chief Priest still had a lot of 'pull'.

I don't accept stories of massive Roman oppression in Judea..... and not even present in Galilee. The oppression came when Pilate's seniors were p-ssed off, as with Sepphoris.

So Jesus could have been very interesting to Pilate. Maybe, just maybe, Pilate did not want him dead.

 

[oldbadger]

Josephus is just a can of worms, and nothing credible enough to use. Start another thread on that if you wish.

One of Josephus' paragraghs provides strong evidence that Jesus existed. You should read Crosson..........

 

[oldbadger]

Maybe one day you will learn that a scholars job, is to explain the evidence before them.

Have you ever listened to a single professor?

.....Well..... hang on...... you chuck professors over your shoulder...... you dump them..... you insult them.....
They are either 'not recent enough'...
......... or they are 'boys'...........
..... or you 'would not read a word they wrote'..

We need a list. A FIXED list of whom you accept as a reasonable scholar.
And once you've made the list... we need you to stick to it.

Honestly......

Have you taken a college class on this topic?

:biglaugh: You've mentioned this a few times now, so I'm guessing that you went to a class, which suddenly turned you into a quasi-scholar.

Are you a quasi-scholar? College classes simply subject trainees to the lesson-plans. Trainees and students need to search for themselves.

 

[oldbadger]

STEELTOES........

Why didn't you respond to my earlier post? I wanted your opinion....

I'll copy it below.....

.......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.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The crucifixion part of the NT always seemed slightly sketchy to me, and the "narrative ends quickly..is the crucifixion merely a convenient way to end the story? Is it just saying ,Jesus left'... /went to india or whatever/..

Any opinions on this?

What if there were two?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

:biglaugh: You've mentioned this a few times now, so I'm guessing that you went to a class, which suddenly turned you into a quasi-scholar.

You have absolutely no idea how far off you are.

 

[oldbadger]

What if there were two?

......just what some of us have been discussing.
it might be worth looking back some pages...

 

[fantome profane]

Wow, you just ignore whatever I say and repeat yourself.

Historians need extra biblical sources to determine the historicity of the NT. For the fourth time - it is not that I do not consider the gospels to be evidence. To confirm historicity you need EXTRA BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.

For the fifth time. I am not denying the evidence of the gospels. And the legitimacy of Josephus is hotly contested. Josephus and Tacitus tell us very little anyway.




Please at least read my comments before responding to me,

What difference does it really make whether a source is classified as "Biblical" or "extra Biblical"? This distinction did not exist till centuries after these documents were written.

 

[oldbadger]

You have absolutely no idea how far off you are.

what I'm finding is this: books i read a year ago, and gained little from, on a second reading are flinging somuch good info at me that i am stunned.
this must be to do with, what i call, subject foundation.
i really disliked Crosson, but this time round i am finding his chosen specialists to be deadly sharp.

 

[outhouse]

Grow up buddy. I have a degree in history, I know more about this topic than you do.

Knowing what happened in the americal revolution, or what ever you studied, has no merit or credibility towards NT studies.


Dont act like you have an education when you display so much ignorance on these topics.

What extra biblical evidence are these nameless historians relying on?

Josephus is the only one worth mentioning, and I dont even like dealing with him.



When will you face the evidence we have is the question here. You dont get to discount evidence, and if you actually had any training, you would know this.

 

[outhouse]

Indeed. You should learn to take your own advice on that point.

I have studied at Paul at Harvard.

I have followed Dale B Martin at Yale.


Have you sat through a single lecture on the NT anywhere???? I didnt think so.

 

[outhouse]

Historians need extra biblical sources to determine the historicity of the NT.

,

This is simply not accurate.

Nor can you show why.


It is also another way to say, "the bible does not contain anything historical"


YOU dont get to determine what is considered evidence

 

[outhouse]

but this time round i am finding his chosen specialists to be deadly sharp.

Johnathon Reed is my favorite.

But I still find his overall view as opinion. His facts are outstanding

 

[outhouse]

What difference does it really make whether a source is classified as "Biblical" or "extra Biblical"? This distinction did not exist till centuries after these documents were written.

Exactly.

YEC creationist deny evidence towards evolution. I dont see any difference as both seem to throw away credible work.

:areyoucra

 

[Desert Snake]

......just what some of us have been discussing.
it might be worth looking back some pages...

Yes, that there might be a mix-up. I'm going to reference Josephus and see if there is a possibility there.

 

[oldbadger]

What difference does it really make whether a source is classified as "Biblical" or "extra Biblical"? This distinction did not exist till centuries after these documents were written.

true.
other sources all get heavily criticised, so the several individual reports in the nt hold most interest for historians.