Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[fantome profane]

i like the idea! If a newspaper article on the back page is rubbish , then so is the main story on the front page! In this way we can rubbish every compilation ever writ! Handy!
.

And anything you don't like you can just fold up and put inside your Bible. And as long as you keep it inside those covers it doesn't count, because it isn't "external".

 

[outhouse]

hang on..... Your view, let me see if i have it right.
half starved under-peasant with three or four hangers on, shuffling from village to village offering magic for meal, who got into a scuffle in the temple, was executed and thrown in a pit with other corpses for the dogs to scavenge. (the dogs bit must be important cos i have read it often in your posts.
i wonder if you mentioned that to the prof....

Getting closer to the reality of first century Galilean life.

Maybe you think it was all puppy dogs and kittens and buffet's


Even the parables back a poor hungry peasant class.

 

[oldbadger]

And anything you don't like you can just fold up and put inside your Bible. And as long as you keep it inside those covers it doesn't count, because it isn't "external".

.......... why didn't I ever think of that.
.......... and if you staple it in.......... that's that..... it's bulldust!

 

[oldbadger]

Getting closer to the reality of first century Galilean life.

Maybe you think it was all puppy dogs and kittens and buffet's

Even the parables back a poor hungry peasant class.

You could have refuted that..........
Look....... the peasant class had more depth than you realise. And lifetimes seem to have been longer than average. Galilee was extremely fertile.

And Jesus was nowhere near the bottom of the social scale.

Your model is way off........... and most unusual.

 

[steeltoes]

Getting closer to the reality of first century Galilean life.

Maybe you think it was all puppy dogs and kittens and buffet's


Even the parables back a poor hungry peasant class.

Christian itinerant preachers are rich beyond their means but you are suggesting the originator couldn't cut it. Could it be the poor Jesus is the mythical Jesus?


Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-34. Here Jesus is speaking to John's followers: "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine . . . The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'" This passage comes after Jesus has performed miracles and convinced John's followers that he is the Son of Man (the Messiah). Jesus' point is this (paraphrased): "you rejected me because I did not share your asceticism, yet I have proven to you, through miracles, that I am in fact the Messiah."



This sounds like Jesus and followers are living the high life. "I did not share your asceticism," so much for going hungry.

 

[oldbadger]

Christian itinerant preachers are rich beyond their means but you are suggesting the originator couldn't cut it. Could it be the poor Jesus is the mythical Jesus?

No.....just the wrong description of the real Jesus.

Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-34. Here Jesus is speaking to John's followers: "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine . . . The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'" This passage comes after Jesus has performed miracles and convinced John's followers that he is the Son of Man (the Messiah). Jesus' point is this (paraphrased): "you rejected me because I did not share your asceticism, yet I have proven to you, through miracles, that I am in fact the Messiah."

If this was myth, the evangelists would have turned it round so that their Saviour, their God .... was perfect. But the above is so 'honest' about Jesus that it just had to be true.
Your example is a pefect exhibit of written truth, about a real person.

This sounds like Jesus and followers are living the high life. "I did not share your asceticism," so much for going hungry.

Jesus the Healer was ok. He enjoyed good company, good food and relaxing drink. What a great guy. Outhouse's model is eccentric in my opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

No.....just the wrong description of the real Jesus.


If this was myth, the evangelists would have turned it round so that their Saviour, their God .... was perfect. But the above is so 'honest' about Jesus that it just had to be true.
Your example is a pefect exhibit of written truth, about a real person.


Jesus the Healer was ok. He enjoyed good company, good food and relaxing drink. What a great guy. Outhouse's model is eccentric in my opinion.

The highly secular version of HJ relies on a 'character of Jewish Rabbi' because it essentially has to. Jesus has to be a relatively 'unknown Jewish teacher' because otherwise we are dealing with possible witness accounts, problematic because then we have the uncomfortable position of explaining how we are supposed to believe a small portion of text from outright liars, while discounting the rest of the narrative.

This is, why secular HJ usually ends up extremely 'made-upism' in nature.

 

[Bunyip]

Complete nonsense.

If you are a historian you need to consider the origin of any documentary source you have. You need to consider who wrote it, when it was written, where it was written, under what circumstances it was written and for what purpose it was written.

The NT contains 27 books. You can consider the letters of Paul to be one source, and you could count Luke and Acts as one source because they were created by the same author. The other books were created by different authors, at different times, and for different purposes. No reasonable historian considers the NT to be one source. Even myther historians do not consider the NT to be one source.

The idea that binding different sources together changes the value of their content is ridiculous magical thinking.

Seriously you ought to be ashamed of saying this. :slap:

Saying that something is ridiculous is the most worthless and fatuous form of debate. You need external sources in order to validate a given text.

The bible is a single source, dismissing that fact as magic/ridiculous or whatever other excuse you can invent does not change the fact that you need external sources in order to validate the historicity of the bible.

Yes, bundling together all manner of different sources into one 1600 years ago - makes them one source.

 

[nash8]

Define "external". Are not Pauls letter's "external" to the Gospel of Mark? Is not James "external" to both?

Exactly.

The reason why you need external sources is for corroboration. You can evidence the historicity of a text by finding external sources that confirm it. The NT does not stand alone as evidence because you can not use a source to confirm itself.

As Fantome has pointed out, the Bible is not one text. It is a group of a bunch of different text generally agreed upon as being written by different people that a group of Roman leaders (many who didn't even follow the religion prior) decided to put together in one book. That's not even talking about the texts the decided not to put in the Bible because it didn't fit their "criterion", whatever that was. Hell, the Bible contains a million different genres written over the course of a thousand years. I need to go over and post in the Judaism DIR, and let them know the OT and the NT are now considered one "source".

Example please?

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.

Go post that the Tanakh is the same source as anything located in the NT, see how well that goes over... i'll wait. opcorn:

No.....just the wrong description of the real Jesus.

If this was myth, the evangelists would have turned it round so that their Saviour, their God .... was perfect. But the above is so 'honest' about Jesus that it just had to be true.
Your example is a pefect exhibit of written truth, about a real person.

Jesus the Healer was ok. He enjoyed good company, good food and relaxing drink. What a great guy. Outhouse's model is eccentric in my opinion.

Jesus didn't have to be rich to drink good. He could turn water into wine.
And in my opinion there's only 2 types of people that hang out with prostitutes: tricks and pimps, and Jesus wasn't no trick lol.

 

[nash8]

Example please?

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

Please at least read my comments before responding to me,

Not the best examples, but they definitely qualify as claims being rejected due to irrelevant facts about the one presenting the claim. In this example, the accusation that I blatantly disregarded statements that you previously made, my inability to make new claims based on new arguments, and my inability to read, specifically with regard to comments previously having been made by you.

I know I could of found some regarding you and outhouse, but I already spend way to much time researching irrelevant stuff on this forum as it is. :yes:

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, bundling together all manner of different sources into one 1600 years ago - makes them one source.

Can you name one historian who believes that bundling together difference sources makes them one source?

Can you find one person on this board who agrees that bundling together different sources makes them one source?

Have you ever heard the expression "you can't judge a book by its cover"?

Have you ever heard the expression "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"?


I have never heard anyone else clam that binding different books together has any effect on the value of their content. This idea is not even close to being reasonable. I am sorry I lack the words to express how absolutely ridiculous this is. It's voodoo.:tribal::bonk:

It is the job of historians to look at the source in its original context. This is what they do.

 

[Bunyip]

Exactly.



As Fantome has pointed out, the Bible is not one text. It is a group of a bunch of different text generally agreed upon as being written by different people that a group of Roman leaders (many who didn't even follow the religion prior) decided to put together in one book.

Yes, a bunch of different texts, gathered into ONE. So it becomes a single source.

That's not even talking about the texts the decided not to put in the Bible because it didn't fit their "criterion", whatever that was. Hell, the Bible contains a million different genres written over the course of a thousand years. I need to go over and post in the Judaism DIR, and let them know the OT and the NT are now considered one "source".

They only count as a single source in the context of establishing the historicity of the contents. That is just how historical research works. In order to validate the historicity of a given source (in this case the bible) you heed external sources for comparison.

We are also referring specifically to the crucifixion, you can not use the OT as a source, because THE CRUCIFIXION IS NOT IN THE OT BUDDY!

Now for all of the denialism, that is simply the fact. This thread is about historicity, and you need sources external to the bible in order to establish it.

Go post that the Tanakh is the same source as anything located in the NT, see how well that goes over... i'll wait. opcorn:

Why would I do that? Perhaps your reading comprehension is an issue - you are gojng off on some wierd and irrelevant tangent. The topic here is the crucifixion, an event for which external validation is needed.

 

[oldbadger]

The highly secular version of HJ relies on a 'character of Jewish Rabbi' because it essentially has to. Jesus has to be a relatively 'unknown Jewish teacher'............

The working Jewish people were not secular...... they were very religious.
Jesus was not a teacher....... he was an artisan who could heal, which drew crowds and caused him to be known 'around and about'.

....................because otherwise we are dealing with possible witness accounts, problematic because then we have the uncomfortable position of explaining how we are supposed to believe a small portion of text from outright liars, while discounting the rest of the narrative.

Many witness accounts, no doubt, passed on by word of mouth, because mot many workers were literate.
The fact that evangelists 'fiddled' with things, later on..... cannot stamp out the original truths.

This is, why secular HJ usually ends up extremely 'made-upism' in nature.

This is why a real HJ peeps through the theological varnishes.

 

[Bunyip]

Can you name one historian who believes that bundling together difference sources makes them one source?

Can you find one person on this board who agrees that bundling together different sources makes them one source?

Have you ever heard the expression "you can't judge a book by its cover"?

Have you ever heard the expression "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"?


I have never heard anyone else clam that binding different books together has any effect on the value of their content. This idea is not even close to being reasonable. I am sorry I lack the words to express how absolutely ridiculous this is. It's voodoo.:tribal::bonk:

It is the job of historians to look at the source in its original context. This is what they do.

I doubt that any historian would fail to grasp the simple point under contention: In order to evidence the historicity of any given source, you need to corroborate it with external sources.

And so in the context of this thread - to validate the data about the crucifixion in the bible as a historical event, you need external sources. Sadly what external sources we have are extremely limited.

I get it that you guys simp,y refuse to admit this fact, what is amusing is that you all seem to imagine that mockng me for pointing it out is somehow going to make the missing evidence you need magically pop into existence.

Historians do look at the source in its original context, just as you say - AND THEN they look for external sources to corroborate it. That is history 101.

I get the impression that you guys think that if you say 'ridiculous' often enough and post enough emoticons, you are 'winning'.

Why not try dropping the mockery, and the emoticons and instead actually engaging with a reasonable arguement?

If it is so clear and so easy, you wouldn't need the schoolyard foolishness.

 

[nash8]

The highly secular version of HJ relies on a 'character of Jewish Rabbi' because it essentially has to. Jesus has to be a relatively 'unknown Jewish teacher' because otherwise we are dealing with possible witness accounts, problematic because then we have the uncomfortable position of explaining how we are supposed to believe a small portion of text from outright liars, while discounting the rest of the narrative.

This is, why secular HJ usually ends up extremely 'made-upism' in nature.

The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time."[178]

I like price's quote on the subject, but I ask, why couldn't he of been all of them at the same time? Or at least 2 or 3?

Saying that something is ridiculous is the most worthless and fatuous form of debate. You need external sources in order to validate a given text.

The bible is a single source, dismissing that fact as magic/ridiculous or whatever other excuse you can invent does not change the fact that you need external sources in order to validate the historicity of the bible.

Yes, bundling together all manner of different sources into one 1600 years ago - makes them one source.

So I can bundle any random assortment of texts together, and they become one source. So if I bundle an article written by Hawkins together with the a comic book, they magically become one source? I need to get to bundling then. I can add so much needed legitimacy to the X-men series.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus didn't have to be rich to drink good. He could turn water into wine.

........... water into.......... gin.

And in my opinion there's only 2 types of people that hang out with prostitutes: tricks and pimps, and Jesus wasn't no trick lol.

During the early 70's's I used to go to a cafe in Paddington for a coffee and read the newspaper to let the rush-hour traffic get clear. Many prostitutes and call-girls would meet there in the early evening. Over time they became used to my regular presence, got to know me...... I got to know some of them. We would talk, sometimes. I learned a lot. I never discarded or avoided them. I tell you what....... I bet that Jesus would not have particularly avoided that cafe either...... He would have loved the coffee........ and the coffee cake. ....... and the people......

 

[nash8]

Yes, a bunch of different texts, gathered into ONE. So it becomes a single source.

They only count as a single source in the context of establishing the historicity of the contents. That is just how historical research works. In order to validate the historicity of a given source (in this case the bible) you heed external sources for comparison.

We are also referring specifically to the crucifixion, you can not use the OT as a source, because THE CRUCIFIXION IS NOT IN THE OT BUDDY!

Now for all of the denialism, that is simply the fact. This thread is about historicity, and you need sources external to the bible in order to establish it.


Why would I do that? Perhaps your reading comprehension is an issue - you are gojng off on some wierd and irrelevant tangent. The topic here is the crucifixion, an event for which external validation is needed.

Yet another example of an ad-hominem attack, obviously my reading comprehension is not the issue, and really has not bearing on the argument I am trying to present.

Secondly, why does the OT, which is generally agreed upon as being "part of the Bible", all of the sudden not become part of the Bible. So is the OT considered the same source as the Bible or not? It can't be both ways. And if you really want to argue, the OT can be considered a major point with regard to the crucifixion, as it could be argued that the NT is simply a fulfillment of OT prophecies.

 

[nash8]

........... water into.......... gin.


During the early 70's's I used to go to a cafe in Paddington for a coffee and read the newspaper to let the rush-hour traffic get clear. Many prostitutes and call-girls would meet there in the early evening. Over time they became used to my regular presence, got to know me...... I got to know some of them. We would talk, sometimes. I learned a lot. I never discarded or avoided them. I tell you what....... I bet that Jesus would not have particularly avoided that cafe either...... He would have loved the coffee........ and the coffee cake. ....... and the people......

I stand corrected lol. And I am in total agreement with you.

I agree. and in fact, "Messiah" as a term is not necessarily what most people think the term always to mean.
This is one of the reasons why Josephus use of the term for Yeshua isn't strange.

/this may have been referenced already, but it's pertinent /

It might have been, but I am not aware of it. Can you expand on this, or point me in the right direction.

 

[Bunyip]

The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time."[178]

I like price's quote on the subject, but I ask, why couldn't he of been all of them at the same time? Or at least 2 or 3?



So I can bundle any random assortment of texts together, and they become one source. So if I bundle an article written by Hawkins together with the a comic book, they magically become one source? I need to get to bundling then. I can add so much needed legitimacy to the X-men series.

Deliberately misrepresenting my position acheives nothing for you.

Im not sure if you have reading difficulties, but no I am not talking about any magical transformation that occurs when you staple your comics together sparky. Maybe read through the thread again - perhaps ask another adult to help?

 

[Bunyip]

Yet another example of an ad-hominem attack, obviously my reading comprehension is not the issue, and really has not bearing on the argument I am trying to present.

Given your apparent inability to grasp one of the most basic principles of historical research, no matter how many times it is repeated to you - that was a fair observation, not an ad hom attack.

Secondly, why does the OT, which is generally agreed upon as being "part of the Bible", all of the sudden not become part of the Bible. So is the OT considered the same source as the Bible or not? It can't be both ways. And if you really want to argue, the OT can be considered a major point with regard to the crucifixion, as it could be argued that the NT is simply a fulfillment of OT prophecies.

Who said that the OT is not part of the bible? Certainly not me. Are you mixing up my comments with somebody elses?

The OT can not be used to validate the historicity of the crucifixion, for a really good reason - it had not happened yet. Historians need to find corroboration for an event from texts that occured AFTER the event has occured. Finding references to historical events that predate the event is not something historians waste their time with.