Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[fantome profane]

I define 'external' as in, not included in.

So in reference to the bible I define 'external to the bible' to he something that is not included in the bible.

But that is a distinction that was made centuries latter. Why is it relevant?

Let's say I have three sources on George Washington. But then I put all three in the same pile. Perhaps I go so far as to tape them together. Do those three sources magically become one source?

 

[oldbadger]

You took a free online course for a month and you call that attending Harvard?

Is that what was meant?

 

[oldbadger]

How about we remove lines from other narratives such as Superman in order to get to an historical Clark Kent. Or should we just stick to gMark and commit special pleading?

I love it when you drop everything and run.....

You just never had to discover truths from negatives. I earned a good living doing just that............ tracing people when others failed, all by gauging people's negatives.

That's what Crosson was doing there. I was so impressed with his approach.
You can't appreciate it 'cos you never had to do it.

 

[oldbadger]

Is this some kind of a joke?

No...... but you do, when you're cornered.....

"Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate. It is notable that Josephus and other historians didn't live during Jesus' lifetime." wiki

That it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus appears to be wishful thinking.

Ha ha........ Gotcha! You can't overlook where the para was placed..... beside reports of other insurrectionists, revolutionaries...... if the evangelists had just removed Josephus's entry and then placed their piece adjacent to JtB's, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

I do love that........

That is historical investigation. Over the top of your head?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is historical investigation.

You would probably enjoy Whealey.

Over the top of your head?

 

[oldbadger]

You would probably enjoy Whealey.

whealey... The reading list extends......

this subject, honestly, has not commenced here. I always was a slow starter, your actual tortoise, but once things start humming. I cant copy it because I am on a mobile,but g-marks mention of barabbas explains that he caused insurrection or similar in Jerusalem 'with him'. .....'with him'. G-mark obviously expects the reader to know who 'he' was. There does not look to be any 'angle' (angel) , so what is that about?

 

[steeltoes]

No...... but you do, when you're cornered.....



Ha ha........ Gotcha! You can't overlook where the para was placed..... beside reports of other insurrectionists, revolutionaries...... if the evangelists had just removed Josephus's entry and then placed their piece adjacent to JtB's, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

I do love that........

That is historical investigation. Over the top of your head?

You are the one in over your head. This is all new to you but it's been noted for a long time that the passage interrupts the continuity of the writing. I am surprised that Crossan says otherwise.

About the abbreviated version:
"The problem is, however, that this is all complete speculation and there isn't any evidence to support it. Yes, if we suppose that Josephus were to write about Jesus, this proposal by F.F. Bruce does perhaps sound plausible, but writing things that we think Josephus could have said had he chosen to write about this topic, assuming that he even knew who Jesus was, isn't the point. We can all sit around proposing what hundreds of people "might" have written about Jesus, but that isn't evidence, that's just us making things up, and that's all that F.F. Bruce is doing here, engaging in a bit of fancy." R.G.Price


Regarding the flow of the paragraphs:
"The first thing that you should notice is that the passage about Jesus interrupts the flow of the writing. Paragraph 2 leads into paragraph 4, while paragraph 3 is an interruption that goes off on a tangent that is not related to the subject at hand. This alone is a pretty significant piece of evidence, however it has been countered with the statement that Josephus did sometimes interrupt his train of thought with digressions. Nevertheless, this is a significant point against authenticity. The paragraph about Jesus could be removed from the text and no loss would be apparent, indeed the text would appear to be more consistent. The paragraph on Jesus adds noting to the rest of the work.
In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it's content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents. A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case." R.G.Price

 

[Ken Brown]

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?

Shalom disciple, no, it is not a metaphor, it was an actual event that FULFILLED what was WRITTEN in the OT Scriptures, especially, the Torah.

Lk 18:31 - 18:34

(31) Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
(32) For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
(33) And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
(34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Acts 13:28 - 13:30

(28) And though they found no cause of death [in him], yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
(29) And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre.
(30) But Elohim raised him from the dead:

Acts 24:14 - 24:15

(14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the Elohim of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
(15) And have hope toward Elohim, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Acts 26:22 - 26:23

(22) Having therefore obtained help of Elohim, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
(23) That Messiah should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

It should be evident to anyone who believes the Scriptures that Yeshua's suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection was all ACCORDING to what had been previously WRITTEN. But even with such strong evidence, as what is WRITTEN by Moses, there are those who will NOT BELIEVE:

Acts 28:23 - 28:24

(23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of Elohim, persuading them concerning Yeshua, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.
(24) And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[outhouse]

Is that what was meant?

Harvard had an online class on Paul. And yes I did take it. I have no problem admitting I choose to learn about what Im talking about and enjoy having someone more knowledgeable teach me.

Unlike these people who think they know everything well enough to try and discount professors :slap:


Those who appose the historicity of jesus always knock education of any kind and knowledge. I have seen YEC doing the same exact thing.

 

[outhouse]

YOU notice how nothing gets refuted here

So not only do you ignore credible evidence with the NT, but you also are forced to hide from accounts you asked about.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Other accounts and references



An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written sometime after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD.[63][64][65] The letter includes no Christian themes and the author is presumed to be a pagan.[63][64][66] The letter refers to the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of three wise men: Socrates, Pythagoras, and "the wise king" of the Jews.[63][65] Some scholars see little doubt that the reference to the execution of the "king of the Jews" is about the crucifixion of Jesus, while others place less value in the letter, given the possible ambiguity in the reference.[66][67]
In the Antiquities of the Jews (written about 93 AD) Jewish historian Josephus, stated (Ant 18.3) that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, writing that:[68]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, ... He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles ... And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross ...
​

Most modern scholars agree that while this Josephus passage (called the Testimonium Flavianum) includes some later interpolations, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.[69][70][71] It is notable that Josephus and other historians didn't live during Jesus' lifetime. James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Testimonium.[72]
Early in the second century another reference to the crucifixion of Jesus was made by Tacitus, generally considered one of the greatest Roman historians.[73][74] Writing in The Annals (c. 116 AD), Tacitus described the persecution of Christians by Nero and stated (Annals 15.44) that Pilate ordered the execution of Jesus:[68][75]

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.
​

Scholars generally consider the Tacitus reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate to be genuine, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[73][76][77][78][79][80] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[9]
Another possible reference to the crucifixion ("hanging" cf. Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13) is found in the Babylonian Talmud:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!
—Sanhedrin 43a, Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Edition)

​

 

[steeltoes]

Harvard had an online class on Paul. And yes I did take it. I have no problem admitting I choose to learn about what Im talking about and enjoy having someone more knowledgeable teach me.

Unlike these people who think they know everything well enough to try and discount professors :slap:


Those who appose the historicity of jesus always knock education of any kind and knowledge. I have seen YEC doing the same exact thing.

Welding your bit of education around like a blunt instrument with absolute certain knowledge should anyone doubt the real Jesus Christ as you know him is an irony lost on you.

 

[steeltoes]

You would probably enjoy Whealey.

Whealey to the rescue, lest our absolute certainty of an historical Jesus be questioned.

 

[fantome profane]

Harvard had an online class on Paul. And yes I did take it. I have no problem admitting I choose to learn about what Im talking about and enjoy having someone more knowledgeable teach me.

Unlike these people who think they know everything well enough to try and discount professors :slap:


Those who appose the historicity of jesus always knock education of any kind and knowledge. I have seen YEC doing the same exact thing.

I think that is great, and I have a lot of respect to people who put the effort in to educate themselves on the topic. But to say you "studied at Harvard" is a tad misleading.

 

[steeltoes]

My focus was on fundamentalism and sectarian violence. Very relevant.

Spare me the childish ad hominem attack.
You have demonstrated an utter ignorance of the field you are debating so stick to debate and quit the stupid insults.

Anyone that thinks Jesus might be historical but is less than absolutely certain is branded a myther, the object of disdain on this thread by the absolutists so it's doubtful that the stupid insults will subside anytime soon.

 

[outhouse]

I think that is great, and I have a lot of respect to people who put the effort in to educate themselves on the topic. But to say you "studied at Harvard" is a tad misleading.

Steeltoes and a few others here, already knew about this, and was present in the other forum when this class was anounced. I even posted I signed up. It was kind of common knowledge.

Toto was the original poster who brought this to attention.


Being in a class at that college being taught by their professors from that college qualy's in my book



But hey, lets not forget about Yales information found here.

Introduction to New Testament History and Literature (Yale, RLST 152); 26-lecture course by Dale B. Martin | Virtual Professors

 

[steeltoes]

I think that is great, and I have a lot of respect to people who put the effort in to educate themselves on the topic. But to say you "studied at Harvard" is a tad misleading.

If it serves an historical Jesus we can be sure it's justified in his mind.

 

[oldbadger]

You are the one in over your head. This is all new to you but it's been noted for a long time that the passage interrupts the continuity of the writing. I am surprised that Crossan says otherwise.

About the abbreviated version:
"The problem is, however, that this is all complete speculation and there isn't any evidence to support it. Yes, if we suppose that Josephus were to write about Jesus, this proposal by F.F. Bruce does perhaps sound plausible, but writing things that we think Josephus could have said had he chosen to write about this topic, assuming that he even knew who Jesus was, isn't the point. We can all sit around proposing what hundreds of people "might" have written about Jesus, but that isn't evidence, that's just us making things up, and that's all that F.F. Bruce is doing here, engaging in a bit of fancy." R.G.Price


Regarding the flow of the paragraphs:
"The first thing that you should notice is that the passage about Jesus interrupts the flow of the writing. Paragraph 2 leads into paragraph 4, while paragraph 3 is an interruption that goes off on a tangent that is not related to the subject at hand. This alone is a pretty significant piece of evidence, however it has been countered with the statement that Josephus did sometimes interrupt his train of thought with digressions. Nevertheless, this is a significant point against authenticity. The paragraph about Jesus could be removed from the text and no loss would be apparent, indeed the text would appear to be more consistent. The paragraph on Jesus adds noting to the rest of the work.
In addition to this, each book in Antiquity of the Jews has a detailed Tables of Contents, that mentions the details of the subjects contained in each chapter. The passage on Jesus, despite being quite important in it's content, is not listed in the book summary. Given the content of the Testimonium, it is quite peculiar that there is no mention of Jesus in the Table of Contents. A mention of someone who is the Messiah, or who is believed to have been the Messiah, and who is claimed to have risen from the dead and been a worker of wonder works, etc., would surely warrant a mention one would think, even for a non-Christian audience, however this is not the case." R.G.Price

you have missed the angle again.
does the table of contents link mention of the other two revolutionary types?

 

[fantome profane]

If it serves an historical Jesus we can be sure it's justified in his mind.

I think it is excellent that he did this. These kind of online courses can be fantastic. I applaud anyone's effort to educate themselves.

Please tell me you are not going to start demeaning the value of education. I thought that was the "other guy" who is no longer with us.

 

[outhouse]

. These kind of online courses can be fantastic..

The information they provided definitely added to my knowledge.

Many little details of the cultural thropology of the time period.


Example, how he folded the letters, and used a little piece of papyrus string pulled from the edge of the letter to bind and hold the folded letter in place.


This was about Paul, it had nothing at all to do with Jesus historicity, and everything to do with Paul and the world he lived in.

The class will come up again at Harvard EdX.

https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harvardx-hds1544-1x-early-christianity-927

 

[steeltoes]

you have missed the angle again.
does the table of contents link mention of the other two revolutionary types?

Read the table of contents and the chapter for yourself, I did, and then see if your question makes sense.