Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[fantome profane]

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?

Have I also misrepresented you position? I really kind of hope that I have misunderstood you. If I have misrepresented you it was an honest mistake and I will sincerely apologize. It is very hard for me to believe that anyone would believe something as ridiculous as what it seems you are saying. It is easily to believe that I have misunderstood you. So if you think that I have misrepresented you in anyway please help me out and clarify your position.

 

[Bunyip]

Have I also misrepresented you position? I really kind of hope that I have misunderstood you. If I have misrepresented you it was an honest mistake and I will sincerely apologize. It is very hard for me to believe that anyone would believe something as ridiculous as what it seems you are saying. It is easily to believe that I have misunderstood you. So if you think that I have misrepresented you in anyway please help me out and clarify your position.

Let me make it as clear as possible then. FYI I have spent the last four years at uni, I have a degree in history.

No, I am not claiming that stapling comic books together magically changes the contents.

No I am not claiming that you can staple the works of Hawkins to Iron Man comics and some form of magical transformation occurs.

No I am not claiming anything that involves magic, magical transformation or any such thing.

Here is what I AM saying: The various sources that were combined into the bible and that have been published and copied as a single publication for about a millenia and a half count as a single source when trying to validate the historicity of any event mentioned within it.

The first step in establishing the historicity of any events in a given text (in this case the bible) is to look for corroborating sources outside of that text.

So in this context, we are discussing the historicity of the biblical account of the crucifixion. So the first step would be to look for references to the crucifixion external to the biblical account.

 

[fantome profane]

Here is what I AM saying: The various sources that were combined into the bible and that have been published and copied as a single publication for about a millenia and a half count as a single source when trying to validate the historicity of any event mentioned within it.

Well then you are still just simply flat out wrong. That it the nicest way I can put it. You are just wrong.

Do you know what a "canon" is? A canon is just a list. That is all the NT is. People created a list of books. This does not, can not, change the value of the books that are on the list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u72myyXDA74

 

[Bunyip]

Well then you are still just simply flat out wrong. That it the nicest way I can put it. You are just wrong.

Do you know what a "canon" is? A canon is just a list. That is all the NT is. People created a list of books. This does not, can not, change the value of the books that are on the list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u72myyXDA74

I never said that creating a list of books changes the value of the books on that list.

Again I have to assume that you are confusing me for somebody else, or misreading my comments.

What I am saying ( and it seems so impossible for you guys to get) is that historians confirm the historicity of events mentioned in ancient texts (in this case the bible) by looking for corroboration from external sources. Which by the way is why biblical historians have spent so muchtime and effort for so many centuries on Tacitus, Josephus and all other external sources.

So what you seem to find so unimaginably preposterous and inconceivable has in fact been a major focus for many historians in this field, and still is.

So sure, you can think that it is just so astonishingly silly to seek external sources, but it remains something that many brilliant minds have spent a great deal of time on. And so I can rest assured that what you, badger and outhouse find so absurd is obviosly important to actual real historians and biblical scholars, who have been fascinated with Josephus, Tacitus et al for millenia.


How you somehow magically transformed my simple statement of fact into the idea that I was claiming that creating a list of books changes the value of those books I can only put down to a fertile imagination, or being confused for another person.

 

[fantome profane]

I never said that creating a list of books changes the value of the books on that list.

Again I have to assume that you are confusing me for somebody else, or misreading my comments.

What I am saying ( and it seems so impossible for you guys to get) is that historians confirm the historicity of events mentioned in ancient texts (in this case the bible) by looking for corroboration from externa, sources.

How you somehow magically transformed that simple statement of fact into the idea that I was claiming that creating a list of books changes the value of those books I can only put down to a fertile imagination, or bekng co fused for another person.

Ok, so we return to the beginning. Why is the Gospel of Mark not an external source, as different source, than the writings of Paul?

 

[Bunyip]

Ok, so we return to the beginning. Why is the Gospel of Mark not an external source, as different source, than the writings of Paul?

I have answered that already. Read through the thread again please.

Historians, theologians, scholars explorers and adventurers have been searching across the earth for extra biblical evidence for at least 1600 years. Now I can accept that a few posters here believe that they were all ridiculous, brainless time wasters if that makes you feel better - because according to you few, no other source is needed than the bible.

Fortunately the history of Christian research demonstrates otherwise.

Perhaps you guys should email people like Ben Stein, Albert Sweitzer, David Strauss - heck, pretty much all of the researchers into the historicity of biblical events and have a good laugh at them for wasting so much pointless effort on trying to make a case for the ressurection by examining external sources? Like myself, they are clearly unaware of how unecessary they are.

Maybe if you just keep responding to whatever they say by telling them it is ridiculous, and add as many emoticons to every page as you can - then the entire industry and history of research into extra biblical sources will magically realise that it has been wasting its time and that all of a sudden you CAN use a book to prove itself, because the magical number of emoticons needed to alter reality has been met.

Or is that people say that the bible is all you need to prove its own claims, because they know how little other evidence there is?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here is what I AM saying: The various sources that were combined into the bible and that have been published and copied as a single publication for about a millenia and a half count as a single source when trying to validate the historicity of any event mentioned within it.

That's what you learned at the 'uni'? I'd ask for a refund.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why is the Gospel of Mark not an external source, as different source, than the writings of Paul?

I have answered that already.

As a matter of fact, you've done no such thing. :no:

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe with all of my heart that the Crucifixion of Jesus was a literal historical event in which Jesus Christ was put to death by Crucifixion. I believe with all of my heart that he literally and physically rose from the dead on the 3rd day and then ascended into Heaven 40 days later and sat down at the right hand of the Father. I believe with all of my heart that He is with us until the end of time.

There is historical evidence for His crucifixion. Besides the Gospel accounts, Josephus mentions His crucifixion. There is also a letter which is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son which was written between 73 AD and the 3rd Century which references Jesus crucifixion. In addition, Tacitus, a Roman historian, mentions Jesus' crucifixion. Last, but not least, there is a possible reference to Jesus' crucifixion in the Babylonian Talmud. You can read more about these references at this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts_and_references

Also, there is the fact that the vast majority of mainstream scholars, even those who are non-Christian, agree that Jesus Christ was literally crucified.

So, to put it succinctly, I believe that there is abundant evidence and even proof that Jesus Christ was crucified and therefore I do believe He was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, to put it succinctly, I believe that there is abundant evidence and even proof that Jesus Christ was crucified and therefore I do believe He was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven.

Actually, that is not the case.

• There remain serious questions about the authenticity of the Josephus reference.
• Setting that aside, this and all other examples given were authored relatively long after the event and, in fact, after the development of a nascent Christian communities in the diaspora. They may reflect nothing more than taking at least part of the historical narrative promoted by those communities at face value. If so, the references are more hearsay than abundant proof.

The historicity of the crucifixian may well be a reasonable inference, but there is nothing even approaching the level of abundant proof.

 

[oldbadger]

Here is what I AM saying: The various sources that were combined into the bible and that have been published and copied as a single publication for about a millenia and a half count as a single source when trying to validate the historicity of any event mentioned within it.

.....so much for your degree......

 

[ZooGirl02]

Actually, that is not the case.

• There remain serious questions about the authenticity of the Josephus reference.
• Setting that aside, this and all other examples given were authored relatively long after the event and, in fact, after the development of a nascent Christian communities in the diaspora. They may reflect nothing more than taking at least part of the historical narrative promoted by those communities at face value. If so, the references are more hearsay than abundant proof.

The historicity of the crucifixian may well be a reasonable inference, but there is nothing even approaching the level of abundant proof.

Well, what about the fact that all of the disciples but John went to their deaths as martyrs? I don't think they would have done that had they not really believed that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. I know that doesn't prove that Jesus was crucified but still, it does show that the disciples sincerely believed He was.

Anyway, just because the references are fairly late doesn't mean that they aren't accurate. After all, I don't think a Roman historian is going to get things like that wrong. They had to be extremely accurate in their documentations of historical events.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, what about the fact that all of the disciples but John went to their deaths as martyrs? I don't think they would have done that had they not really believed ...

1. Don't confuse fact and tradition.
2. People die for all manner of beliefs.

Anyway, just because the references are fairly late doesn't mean that they aren't accurate. After all, I don't think a Roman historian is going to get things like that wrong. They had to be extremely accurate in their documentations of historical events.

Which Roman historians and what Roman history have you read?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, while I'm willing to provisionally assume the historicity of the crucifixion - mainly because of the (admittedly weak) criteria of embarrassment - the Didache should give some cause for concern.

 

[ZooGirl02]

1. Don't confuse fact and tradition.
2. People die for all manner of beliefs.

Which Roman historians and what Roman history have you read?

As for number 1, I am trying not to do that. I apologize if I did so.
As for number 2, that's why I said "I know that doesn't prove that Jesus was crucified but still, it does show that the disciples sincerely believed He was." I apologize though. I should have made it clearer.

Also, I have not read any Roman historians but I do know a tiny bit about Roman history. That said, Tacitus, a Roman historian, is said to have spoken about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate according to Wikipedia which does have sources.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I have not read any Roman historians but I do know a tiny bit about Roman history.

So, when you said,

Anyway, just because the references are fairly late doesn't mean that they aren't accurate. After all, I don't think a Roman historian is going to get things like that wrong. They had to be extremely accurate in their documentations of historical events.

you were just making things up.

 

[metis]

Origen made a very interesting comment on the resurrection in that he said that they teach the physical (bodily) resurrection of Jesus to the "dull of mind", and that it's Jesus' spiritual resurrection that is most important.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Origen made a very interesting comment on the resurrection in that he said that they teach the physical (bodily) resurrection of Jesus to the "dull of mind", and that it's Jesus' spiritual resurrection that is most important.

Meaning, apparently, that he viewed the crucifixion as both ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Kirby's Early Christian Writings: Didache quoting Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament:

The prayer of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are also significant. That is because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. Accustomed as we are to the memorial supper of the Christ cult and the stories of the last supper in the synoptic gospels, it has been very difficult to imagine early Christians taking meals together for any reason other than to celebrate the death of Jesus according to the Christ myth. But here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The prayers of thanksgiving are for the food and drink God created for all people and the special, "spiritual" food and drink that Christians have because of Jesus. Drinking the cup symbolizes the knowledge these people have that they and Jesus are the "Holy Vine of David," which means that they "belong to Israel." Eating the bread symbolizes the knowledge these people have of the life and immortality they enjoy by belonging to the kingdom of God made known to them by Jesus, God's child. And it is serious business. No one is allowed to "eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's name" (Did. 9:5). We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.

This strikes me as more than a little remarkable.

 

[Bunyip]

That's what you learned at the 'uni'? I'd ask for a refund.

Why not try getting an education? You may be surprised by what you learn.