Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Bunyip]

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

Buddy, read the thread and THEN comment.

 

[fantome profane]

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

Like for example, magic?

 

[Bunyip]

Like for example, magic?

You seem to forget that the case for the historicity of the crucifixion has not actually bothered to make a case yet.

Mock me all you like,but so far the only argument for the other side has been to claim victory a priori.

None of you have even addressed the difficulties in evidencing the bible, and instead just repeat the same brainless claim that 'scholars' all agree, and so there!

Well the scholars don't agree, and you guys still have bugger all
of the extra biblical evidence you need.

As to magic mate, no I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the magical sky wizard.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Gee wizz! So you think I should get a refund for my history degree, and yet state the exact same opinion it lead me to, and that I have been arguing for here.

 

[Bunyip]

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

Can the bulldust old fella, you have forgotten to make a case for your side so far.

Endlessly repeating the brainless mantra that 'all scholars agree' is not actually an argument.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You continue to underwhelm.

 

[Bunyip]

You continue to underwhelm.

Is that a modern prayer?

 

[oldbadger]

Can the bulldust old fella, you have forgotten to make a case for your side so far.

Endlessly repeating the brainless mantra that 'all scholars agree' is not actually an argument.

why would i join the scrum, when such capable members are holding their own against you? And, no, i don't say that all scholars agree.
but your idea of investigation is absurd..... And i should know....

 

[fantome profane]

You seem to forget that the case for the historicity of the crucifixion has not actually bothered to make a case yet.

Mock me all you like,but so far the only argument for the other side has been to claim victory a priori.

None of you have even addressed the difficulties in evidencing the bible, and instead just repeat the same brainless claim that 'scholars' all agree, and so there!

Well the scholars don't agree, and you guys still have bugger all
of the extra biblical evidence you need.

As to magic mate, no I'm an atheist, I don't believe in the magical sky wizard.

I acknowledge that the NT is a problematic historical document. And should be viewed with skepticism. But that does not mean it can be dismissed. And it does not mean that different sources can be treated as a single source. Crucifixion was a common during that time, and we know what kind of crimes people were crucified for. We know that there were several Jewish uprisings, and we know that leaders of these Jewish uprisings were routinely crucified. Even the different sources we have in the NT, and the documents we do have outside of the NT add up to weak evidence, but you can't ignore that evidence. Jay mentions the criteria of embarrassment, and he characterizes this as weak evidence. I agree, but you can't dismiss the idea. So this is certainly not overwhelming evidence, but it is not a total lack of evidence either.

And all this does for me is to "tip the scale" so that it is more likely than not that there really was a person named Jesus that had a small following and ended up being crucified by the Romans. That is all.

Your attempts to dismiss this (admittedly weak) evidence leads you to making these absurd claims of uniting difference sources into one.

You said

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.

but you also said

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

So how? Please explain the exact method required to make them "one source"?

 

[Bunyip]

why would i join the scrum, when such capable members are holding their own against you? And, no, i don't say that all scholars agree.
but your idea of investigation is absurd..... And i should know....

LOL. It is just a simple fact - you can not use a source to prove itself. Which no amount of mockery will change.

You could get another 50 members here to pretend not to grasp that point, it would not make your case any better.

To hold your own in a debate you need more than mockery and repeating the same silly fallacies - this is not the schoolyard. Sheer numbers parroting the same nonsense doesn't work in the grown up world.

The fact is that the bible is insufficient to establish the historicity of the crucifixion, and that outside of the bible there is very little further corroboration.

As Jayhawker says - you are not even approaching the level of abundant proof.

Sadly, rather than even engage on this issue you all seem content to play the fool.

 

[Bunyip]

I acknowledge that the NT is a problematic historical document. And should be viewed with skepticism. But that does not mean it can be dismissed.

I have stated expressly several times that I do not dismiss it.

And it does not mean that different sources can be treated as a single source.

Agreed. Never said otherwise. In this context the bible is the source in question.

Crucifixion was a common during that time, and we know what kind of crimes people were crucified for. We know that there were several Jewish uprisings, and we know that leaders of these Jewish uprisings were routinely crucified. Even the different sources we have in the NT, and the documents we do have outside of the NT add up to weak evidence, but you can't ignore that evidence.

As I said, I do not ignore it. I just pointed out that it is weak.

Jay mentions the criteria of embarrassment, and he characterizes this as weak evidence. I agree, but you can't dismiss the idea. So this is certainly not overwhelming evidence, but it is not a total lack of evidence either.

I repeat - I never claimed that there was a total lack of evidence, nor did I dismiss any evidence.

And all this does for me is to "tip the scale" so that it is more likely than not that there really was a person named Jesus that had a small following and ended up being crucified by the Romans. That is all.

You have clearly also missed where I agreed on that point also. I agree that the crucifixion is arguably more likely than not.

Your attempts to dismiss this (admittedly weak) evidence leads you to making these absurd claims of uniting difference sources into one.

I made no such absurd claim, nor did I dismiss any evidence. I think thatis four times in a single post that you have made the same error.

You said
but you also said
So how? Please explain the exact method required to make them "one source"?

Umm... the method was compilation.

 

[fantome profane]

.

Umm... the method was compilation.

Which is just another way of saying, "making a list".

 

[oldbadger]

LOL. It is just a simple fact - you can not use a source to prove itself. Which no amount of mockery will change.

You could get another 50 members here to pretend not to grasp that point, it would not make your case any better.

To hold your own in a debate you need more than mockery and repeating the same silly fallacies - this is not the schoolyard. Sheer numbers parroting the same nonsense doesn't work in the grown up world.

The fact is that the bible is insufficient to establish the historicity of the crucifixion, and that outside of the bible there is very little further corroboration.

As Jayhawker says - you are not even approaching the level of abundant proof.

Sadly, rather than even engage on this issue you all seem content to play the fool.

dear member, your comprehension skills are as rubbish as your investigatory skills. On this thread i have discussed with Nash whether Jesus might have been pardoned, or reprieved, or taken down by bribery, or taken down and lived, or, indeed, died. Having trained investigators for decades, and written about detection and investigation techniques most months for 15 years, and made many training films on the subjects, i am quite sure that your degree only makes you a babe in arms on the subject.
what do you do for a living?

 

[Bunyip]

Which is just another way of saying, "making a list".

Consult your dictionary. No mate, compiling and making lists are different things.

A compilation in this context is an assortment of different elements COMPILED into a whole.

 

[fantome profane]

Consult your dictionary. No mate, compiling and making lists are different things.

Please, explain it to me.

And how does this "compiling" transform different sources written by different people at different times for different reasons onto one source? Can you give us another example other than the Bible of where this kind of thing could happen? How could we do something like this today?

3com·pile
kəmˈpīl/
verb
verb: compile; 3rd person present: compiles; past tense: compiled; past participle: compiled; gerund or present participle: compiling
1.
produce (something, especially a list, report, or book) by assembling information collected from other sources.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As Jayhawker says - you are not even approaching the level of abundant proof.

Sadly, rather than even engage on this issue you all seem content to play the fool.

Actually, for you to talk about "the level of abundant proof" is the height of foolishness. :yes:

 

[Bunyip]

dear member, your comprehension skills are as rubbish as your investigatory skills. On this thread i have discussed with Nash whether Jesus might have been pardoned, or reprieved, or taken down by bribery, or taken down and lived, or, indeed, died. Having trained investigators for decades, and written about detection and investigation techniques most months for 15 years, and made many training films on the subjects, i am quite sure that your degree only makes you a babe in arms on the subject.
what do you do for a living?

LOL Make an argument if you can, you guys have covered the 'yeah, your so dumb and I'm so great!' part of debating - but have forgotten to actually make a case, or present any arguments or evidence.

Try thinking a bit harder and see of you guys can come up with something better than just insulting my education and boasting about your own. The arguments from imagined authority are getting increasingly pathetic

Like some evidence for example.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, for you to talk about "the level of abundant proof" is the height of foolishness. :yes:

LOLOLOL! Dude, you are mocking your own comment. The comment about the level of abundant proof was yours.

You guys are all just flinging mud and not even trying to make a case.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LOLOLOL! Dude, you are mocking your own comment. The comment about the level of abundant proof was yours.

You need to learn to read things in context. Perhaps next year ...

 

[Bunyip]

Please, explain it to me.

And how does this "compiling" transform different sources written by different people at different times for different reasons onto one source?

How does compiling different stories into a single book, make it a single book?

Really?



(Oh and you gave a dictionary definition for compilation, but forgot to include the second meaning, check it out.)