Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Ken Brown]

Shalom Ken

That's interesting, not aware of that.

Shalom disciple, are you aware of what Moses wrote concerning the Ashes of the Red Heifer? If ANYONE was involved with slaughtering, burning, or gathering up the Ashes of the Red Heifer, they were DEFILED, but IF someone had come into contact with the dead, and were DEFILED through that contact, all it took for that defiled person to be purified, was to be SPRINKLED with those Ashes on the THIRD and SEVENTH days, and then WASH. So those Ashes rendered the pure into a defiled state, and caused the impure to become PURE. All of this can be understood by and through the historical event of Yeshua's crucifixion. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Desert Snake]

Shalom disciple, are you aware of what Moses wrote concerning the Ashes of the Red Heifer? If ANYONE was involved with slaughtering, burning, or gathering up the Ashes of the Red Heifer, they were DEFILED, but IF someone had come into contact with the dead, and were DEFILED through that contact, all it took for that defiled person to be purified, was to be SPRINKLED with those Ashes on the THIRD and SEVENTH days, and then WASH. So those Ashes rendered the pure into a defiled state, and caused the impure to become PURE. All of this can be understood by and through the historical event of Yeshua's crucifixion. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Shalom Ken

Where does this leave Christianity in your opinion?

 

[Ken Brown]

Shalom Ken

Where does this leave Christianity in your opinion?

Shalom disciple, if you are referring to traditional christianity, it leaves them between a rock and a hard place. Judaism will understand the historical crucifixion of Yeshua through the chukah of the Torah, and traditional christianity will be just like Judaism of 2000 years ago thinking they KNOW, but not having ears to hear or eyes to see. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ingledsva]

At the risk of appearing dense, what precisely is deemed interesting here - especially if the 'him' refers to Barabbas?

For me - it is the idea that this group was more then just teaching. They were insurrectionists. Which goes along with the type of close combat swords they used, that are named in the Bible, and the idea that some of the 12 were guerrilla type fighters. Zealots? Simon the Zealot? Barabbas? Judas Iscariot - Sicarri?


edit - Forgot to add -


Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of violence/rage/wrath:


Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword (machaira,) and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.


A machaira is a short sword for close combat fighting - often used by thieves and guerrilla fighters.


*

 

[Bunyip]

Our Bunyip learned in his 'uni' to only pay attention to contemporaneous history. It's a pretty worthless methodology but it does cut down on library costs.

Gee. Perhaps at some point you could progress past the pointless insults and actually make some form of argument? It appears that glib mud flinging constitutes the majority of your interactions here.

Nevertheless, my university - like almost all of them apart from the fundamentalist or evangelic variety does indeed place a high degree of importance on finding contemporary evidence for historical events as an indicator of their historicity. It also advocates for historians to look for corroborating evidence from other sources (as do university history departments in general).

That you seem to imagine those two fundaments of historical research to be so hilariously absurd, speaks far, far more eloquently of the weaknesses of your knowledge than of mine.

Lastly a request - so far all you have posted to me are glib insults and fatuous mockery. Why not just grow up and leave the debate to people less interested in childish evasion?

 

[nash8]

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.

I am not arguing that sources outside of the Bible are needed to corroborate the sources inside of the Bible. And I am not arguing that the evidence outside of the Bible is relatively weak. What I am arguing is that Roman leaders around the beginning of the 4th century do not get to decide that the texts in the Bible are one source. I am also arguing that the individual texts of the Bible corroborate each other, and this is what you are missing, and also what you are dismissing when you say that the Bible is one source.

One of the major criterion for authenticity of sources is for the corroboration of sources, and by piling all of the different books of the Bible, with different authors, written at different points, you effectively take away the fact that multiple different sources corroborate one another. You, nor the leaders of the Roman empire, have the authority to do so.

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

The point I was making is that while the OT is considered a part of the Bible by many, by other groups the OT is not considered as a part of the Bible. Why do you get to decide that the two texts are one?

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.

Agreed, but it still does not change the fact that they are 2 separate sources.

Wow! Really?

LOL. Correct. Compiling 60's rock music does not make Paul Macartney Mick Jagger - brilliant deduction there. Boy are you guys doing well.

How could I dare face such minds!

I know what 'canon' means.

What I do not understand is how you imagine it to be relevant, why you are referring to the NT as a canon, and what possible point you think you are making.

Speaking of avoidance, why not engage on the point that you can not use a book to prove its own claims?

While yes it is one book, it is also 27 different "books" written by a similar amount of totally different authors. Why can't you use each of these 27 books to collaborate one another?

That is false, the NT is not just a list, it contains translations of each of those elements and has been published and distributed for centuries with versions of those elements contained within it. Many of those books survive only in that compilation.

So Pagan leaders of the Roman empire around 325 AD decide that the NT is no longer 27 different texts, but now just 1. Now we know the authority.

Your argument would make sense and be true IF those 27 books had all been preserved outside of the bible and so were not effected by having been compiled into it.

There was only 300 or so years for them not to be compiled in the Bible.

What of the other books not compiled? What of all of the other sacred texts not included in the bible? What if the people who compiled the NT selected only sources that gelled with their existing agenda?

In my opinion, they did exactly that. And it is also my opinion that they sought out to destroy many texts that disagreed with those specific 27 books they chose over the next 2000 years or so.

No matter how you look at it, you still need external validation to the elements of that list.

I agree, and I also agree that the evidence outside of those texts contained in the bible is meager. But compiling them into 1 text takes out the corroboration of each of the texts independently.

Oh and here's the elephant in the room - and a question for you to answer if you can;

Guess how many of those 27 books on the list existed within a generation of Jesus death? Guess how many of those books were written long after the events they describe, and so contemporary corroborating evidence would still be desirable?

I'm pretty sure, dependent on the date that Jesus was actually crucified, a decent amount of them, I'd say at least half. Especially with regard to those concerning the crucifixion.

 

[outhouse]

For me - it is the idea that this group was more then just teaching. They were insurrectionists.

Agreed, but.


A Zealot is a widely used term. It does not always mean Sicarri

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not at all sure how you come to read it that way. See here for example.

That is a brilliant bit of kit...... that site.

Point taken.

So Barabbas lay bound with those that had caused trouble..... with Barabbas.
......... in Jerusalem. I don't expect that sentences waited too long for any appeals in those days, meaning that punishments for insurrection would probably have been carried out soon after the act. (JtB's case was different? hence the incarceration?)

I'm suggesting that Barabbas' group's crime was probably very recent. Was Jesus mixed up in the same situation?

Oh Gawd..... The convicts either side of Jesus......... could not just have been robbers. We've got a football team of insurrectionists laying, bound, with Barabbas, so I don't expect that that the convicts on the crosses were shoplifters. ( ). If they were bandits (word as used by Josephus) then they probably had been mixed up in this as well. The one (reportedly) rebuking Jesus, and the other telling the first to shut up.

..... there is a possibility that Jesus, who called himself 'Son of the Father', was reprieved and exiled by a Roman Prefect who considered that he had a political pawn of value. ....... one possibility amongst several.

 

[Ingledsva]

For me - it is the idea that this group was more then just teaching. They were insurrectionists. Which goes along with the type of close combat swords they used, that are named in the Bible, and the idea that some of the 12 were guerrilla type fighters. Zealots? Simon the Zealot? Barabbas? Judas Iscariot - Sicarri?


edit - Forgot to add -


Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of violence/rage/wrath:


Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword (machaira,) and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.


A machaira is a short sword for close combat fighting - often used by thieves and guerrilla fighters.

Agreed, but.


A Zealot is a widely used term. It does not always mean Sicarri

No I'm suggesting their names show that men from several different insurrectionist groups were with Jesus. Zealots and Sicarri, etc.


*

 

[oldbadger]

Interesting, I hadn't looked at that one before.

It does use "sustasiastes" which does mean "fellow insurrectionist," "make insurrection with."

The (1587 Geneva): Then there was one named Barabbas, which was bounde with his fellowes, that had made insurrection, who in the insurrection had committed murther.


(KJV-1611) And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.

(Lamsa NT) There was one called Bar-Abbas, who was bound with those who made insurrection, and who had committed murder during the insurrection.

(LEB) And the one named Barabbas was imprisoned with the rebels who had committed murder in the rebellion.

I translated it this way -

Mark 15:7 There was also the one called Bar-Abbas, among his fellow insurrectionists bound, which same, in the uprising, murder committed.

*

Thankyou very much for the above....

So this wasn't just another uprising..... the usual trouble. This was THE uprising. ?? The way that folks talk about Jesus's rumpus in the Temple it can seem as if it was all over in twenty minutes, but as you certainly know, Jesus's demonstration turned into a picket of the Courts for a three day period. And here we have Jesus, son of the Father, laying bound with his mates, who were involved in THE insurrection.

I think that they were all involved in the same incident.

 

[oldbadger]

For me - it is the idea that this group was more then just teaching. They were insurrectionists. Which goes along with the type of close combat swords they used, that are named in the Bible, and the idea that some of the 12 were guerrilla type fighters. Zealots? Simon the Zealot? Barabbas? Judas Iscariot - Sicarri?


edit - Forgot to add -


Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of violence/rage/wrath:


Mat 26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword (machaira,) and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.


A machaira is a short sword for close combat fighting - often used by thieves and guerrilla fighters.


*

Brilliant info...... I copied the lot. Thankyou

 

[oldbadger]

No I'm suggesting their names show that men from several different insurrectionist groups were with Jesus. Zealots and Sicarri, etc.


*

I think that this is a very strong proposal.
They also used whips.
Jesus suggested the use of swords...... (I need to look that up).

 

[Ingledsva]

I think that this is a very strong proposal.
They also used whips.
Jesus suggested the use of swords...... (I need to look that up).

Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.


His first "recorded" Temple cleansing after the wedding at Cana.


Joh 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Joh 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Joh 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
Joh 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
Joh 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
Joh 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.


His Second "recorded" Temple cleansing at the end of his life.


Mat 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,


Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

 

[Desert Snake]

Judaism will understand the historical crucifixion of Yeshua through the chukah of the Torah,

I don't think Christianity has anything to do with the Jewish Sacrifices. I've read some supposed parallel to the heifer sacrifice, I'm not buying it. It's a different religion, I don't think the Jews even have it right when they refer to Jesus as some sort of 'Jewish Rabbi', like an average Jewish man. That isn't the religion, that isn't the theology. The focus on the "sacrifice" aspect of Christianity is causing a confusion imo, that's just one aspect of the narrative, and only some churches focus on that.

 

[Bunyip]

I am not arguing that sources outside of the Bible are needed to corroborate the sources inside of the Bible. And I am not arguing that the evidence outside of the Bible is relatively weak. What I am arguing is that Roman leaders around the beginning of the 4th century do not get to decide that the texts in the Bible are one source.

Well why are you arguing that? Where has anyone claimed otherwise?

I am also arguing that the individual texts of the Bible corroborate each other, and this is what you are missing, and also what you are dismissing when you say that the Bible is one source.

No. I accept that there are different subsets of the bible that corroborate each other, it is just insufficient to establish the historicity of the crucifixion.

One of the major criterion for authenticity of sources is for the corroboration of sources, and by piling all of the different books of the Bible, with different authors, written at different points, you effectively take away the fact that multiple different sources corroborate one another. You, nor the leaders of the Roman empire, have the authority to do so.

What on earth are you talking about? The bible was compiled way back then, it is nobodies fault.

The point I was making is that while the OT is considered a part of the Bible by many, by other groups the OT is not considered as a part of the Bible. Why do you get to decide that the two texts are one?

What could possibly make you think that I did decide that? Buddy we are discussing the crucifixion - the crucifixion is not in the OT. I did not even refer to it.

Agreed, but it still does not change the fact that they are 2 separate sources.

Again I think you must be confusing me for another. This topic is about the crucifixion, it is not in the OT.

While yes it is one book, it is also 27 different "books" written by a similar amount of totally different authors. Why can't you use each of these 27 books to collaborate one another?

You can. It is just not sufficient in itself.

So Pagan leaders of the Roman empire around 325 AD decide that the NT is no longer 27 different texts, but now just 1. Now we know the authority.

What? That is the third time this post that you have made the same nonsense comment.

There was only 300 or so years for them not to be compiled in the Bible.

Well, about 150 years on average, most of those books date at about 150 ACE.

In my opinion, they did exactly that. And it is also my opinion that they sought out to destroy many texts that disagreed with those specific 27 books they chose over the next 2000 years or so.

Agreed.

I agree, and I also agree that the evidence outside of those texts contained in the bible is meager. But compiling them into 1 text takes out the corroboration of each of the texts independently.

So what?

I'm pretty sure, dependent on the date that Jesus was actually crucified, a decent amount of them, I'd say at least half. Especially with regard to those concerning the crucifixion.

Then you are mistaken, the oldest comes about a generation after the event.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..... there is a possibility that Jesus, who called himself 'Son of the Father', was reprieved and exiled by a Roman Prefect who considered that he had a political pawn of value. ....... one possibility amongst several.

I suppose there's a possibility that Jesus died from eating some tainted prison food and that the whole Barabbas pericope was manufactured to cover up a case of criminal neglect by the prison system -- but I doubt it.

And, speaking of reasonable inference, I see no reason to take Mark's "release custom" [gMk 15:6] as anything other that fiction - or confusion. (So, for example, it seems exceedingly unlikely that such a custom would have been overlooked by Josephus.)

 

[oldbadger]

I suppose there's a possibility that Jesus died from eating some tainted prison food and that the whole Barabbas pericope was manufactured to cover up a case of criminal neglect by the prison system -- but I doubt it.

ok...... I speculated.. . keenly..
who saw Jesus on the cross? Some female followers, from afar.
do you have a gardener? .... Or somebody you see regularly? If we flogged him bloody, pushed thorns onto his head to bloody his features, and crucified him, allowing you a view from afar, could you recognise him?

 

[oldbadger]

And, speaking of reasonable inference, I see no reason to take Mark's "release custom" [gMk 15:6] as anything other that fiction - or confusion. (So, for example, it seems exceedingly unlikely that such a custom would have been overlooked by Josephus.)

ok....... But pilate could do as he felt right. He could act on whim. And crucifixion reprieves did happen. i wonder if he wanted to keep J alive?
have you heard if the legend that Judas was crucified?
.....sorry.... I like thinking outside boxes.

by all means punish me.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ok....... But pilate could do as he felt right. He could act on whim.

1. You apparently know far more about Pilate than I -- more, in fact, than anyone of which I am aware. I'd be interested in your sources.
2. The pericope claims not a whim but a tradition.

And crucifixion reprieves did happen.

• Again: source?

 

[Jainarayan]

***Mod Post***

Please remember Rule 1. Failure to abide by the rule will be treated as a violation:​

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.