Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Ken Brown]

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.

Shalom disciple, let me explain it a little better. Throughout Israel's and Judah's history they have, for the most part, viewed sacrifice as a means to appease Elohim, and this view was denounced by their prophets, i.e. Mic 6:7. They failed to understand that the slaughtering of the innocent victim was for their sake, to TURN them from their iniquity, not at appease a blood thirsty "G-d." Their eyes were blinded and their ears were made deaf to see and understand what was going on with sacrifice.

Now, traditional christianity has followed in their footsteps, having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear as they delusionally believe that "Jesus" was sacrificed in their place to pay the penalty of their sin. They, in their delusion, remain defiled, as they shed Yeshua's Innocent Blood, by sinning. Their is no purification from them BEING a sinner, and they remain in that state of defilement.

I honestly believe that in our day, Judaism will "see" and "hear" concerning the true purpose of sacrifice, and be healed from being transgressors. Coming to understand the Truth concerning Yeshua as THE Spiritual Red Heifer, and how His dead body does defile anyone who had anything to do with killing Him, is the catalyst for turning a defiled sinner INTO a purified Saint. It takes "seeing" Yeshua slaughtered JUST AS Moses predicted in the chukah of the Torah, and when the Jews do SEE it, they will put traditional christianity to shame. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[Desert Snake]

Now, traditional christianity has followed in their footsteps, having eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear as they delusionally believe that "Jesus" was sacrificed in their place to pay the penalty of their sin. They, in their delusion, remain defiled, as they shed Yeshua's Innocent Blood, by sinning. Their is no purification from them BEING a sinner, and they remain in that state of defilement.

Yes, that's basically how I view it, but, I must add, you're referring to "traditional Christianity" holding that belief, that isn't evidenced from my own perspective of reading older viewpoints concerning sin and its ramifications.
Perhaps you're talking about certain branches of Christianity, that might make sense.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

• Again: source?

i have not run away, just over my head with hospitals and operations. Need to type up answers from books. Will come back.

 

[outhouse]

, let me explain it a little better.

ken.

This is about the historicity of the crucifixion.


It is about history, not your apologetics.


If you have anything to add about real history, not apologetics, your welcome to join in.

 

[metis]

Shalom disciple, let me explain it a little better. Throughout Israel's and Judah's history they have, for the most part, viewed sacrifice as a means to appease Elohim, and this view was denounced by their prophets, i.e. Mic 6:7. They failed to understand that the slaughtering of the innocent victim was for their sake, to TURN them from their iniquity, not at appease a blood thirsty "G-d." Their eyes were blinded and their ears were made deaf to see and understand what was going on with sacrifice...

I honestly believe that in our day, Judaism will "see" and "hear" concerning the true purpose of sacrifice, and be healed from being transgressors. Coming to understand the Truth concerning Yeshua as THE Spiritual Red Heifer, and how His dead body does defile anyone who had anything to do with killing Him, is the catalyst for turning a defiled sinner INTO a purified Saint. It takes "seeing" Yeshua slaughtered JUST AS Moses predicted in the chukah of the Torah, and when the Jews do SEE it, they will put traditional christianity to shame. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

Your "understanding" of how we view sacrifices is just so wrong, and even your use of scripture reflects mere picking-and-choosing what you want to believe, not that which is actually written. Instead of believing in nonsense, you actually may want to look something up, such as here: Judaism 101: Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

There are other Jewish sources you can use as well, so you might consider Googling some of them.

 

[metis]

I believe many of us find it terribly offensive that some tell us what we believe that often is not at all what we believe, and they don't seem to either have the basic honesty to try and find out first how we may traditionally or currently look at some things or they just prefer to wallow in ignorance because they're too lazy to look things up or because "ignorance is bliss".

Over and over again we are being insulted by those who simply distort, accidentally or intentionally, what we supposedly believe, and then they have the supreme arrogance to tell us or imply that we don't even know how to read our own scripture.

After a while, it gets really old.

Please, would it hurt some of you that much to actually ask first? If I posted that Christians are cannibals because they eat the body and drink the blood of a man, might you not be offended?

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe many of us find it terribly offensive that some tell us what we believe that often is not at all what we believe, and they don't seem to either have the basic honesty to try and find out first how we may traditionally or currently look at some things or they just prefer to wallow in ignorance because they're too lazy to look things up or because "ignorance is bliss".

Over and over again we are being insulted by those who simply distort, accidentally or intentionally, what we supposedly believe, and then they have the supreme arrogance to tell us or imply that we don't even know how to read our own scripture.

After a while, it gets really old.

Please, would it hurt some of you that much to actually ask first? If I posted that Christians are cannibals because they eat the body and drink the blood of a man, might you not be offended?

Join the club, a good portion of my debates is others telling me what I believe.
That being said, a lot of apologetics seems 'tricky' and argumentative, so I'd rather get more viewpoints than less.

Let me put it this way, Kens viewpoint is welcome.

 

[metis]

Join the club, a good portion of my debates is others telling me what I believe.
That being said, a lot of apologetics seems 'tricky' and argumentative, so I'd rather get more viewpoints than less.

Let me put it this way, Kens viewpoint is welcome.

Ken's viewpoint would be welcome to me as long as he were to at least not falsely tell us what we supposedly believe in Judaism. A lot of us enjoy intelligent discussions, but that's not possible with one who invents their own "facts".

For example, you and I disagree on a fair number of items, but at least as far as I can recall (hey, I'm 69, so cut me some slack here), you don't put words into our mouths.

 

[outhouse]

I believe many of us find it terribly offensive that some tell us what we believe that often is not at all what we believe, and they don't seem to either have the basic honesty to try and find out first how we may traditionally or currently look at some things or they just prefer to wallow in ignorance because they're too lazy to look things up or because "ignorance is bliss".

Agreed.


It comes down to poor methodology.


I have seen "Apologist" and "mythicist" just as guilty with their own version of theology and history.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

I grabbed my few books and started a search. Here is the first mention of total on the spot power, even to execute a Roman military officer without charge.....

With one exception (Temple violations-OB entry) only the prefect had the right to sentence anyone to death.
..............the prefect's right to execute was not only exclusive but also absolute; he could exceute even a Roman citizen, anf he did not have to formulate a charge............
In these ouyposts of empire, the prefect had to be able to do whatever he thought was necessary for the good of Rome, and this included power to discipline the army. if he had the right to execute a Roman military officer without a full Roman trial, he could treat members of the subject nation more or less any way he wished.

The Historical Figure of Jesus. E P Sanders.

Sources:- War 2;117
War 6;126
War 2 306-8
Roman Socirty and Roman Law in the New Testament. Adrian Sherwin-White

I have not read Sander's sources. As a lay reader I have accepted Sander's description.

• Again: source?

This to show that crucifixion reprieves did and could happen, even from the cross.
It has taken me too long to locate the above source. I appeal to any members who can source Josephus's successful appeal for the reprieve of three convicted friends, all whom were taken down from their crosses, one actually surviving.

If he wished to, I propose that Pilate, a Prefect of the equestrian order and most powerful person in Judea, Idumea and Samaria, could do so as well.

I'll bet that you have this pat, off the top of your head, so to speak.....

 

[Desert Snake]

Ken's viewpoint would be welcome to me as long as he were to at least not falsely tell us what we supposedly believe in Judaism. A lot of us enjoy intelligent discussions, but that's not possible with one who invents their own "facts".

For example, you and I disagree on a fair number of items, but at least as far as I can recall (hey, I'm 69, so cut me some slack here), you don't put words into our mouths.

I'm reading between the lines with his sacrifice ideas, I don't personally think Jesus was a replacement of the 'heifer sacrifice', but this opinion is out there, regardless of further beliefs in Judaism concerning sacrifice.
The mere fact that there WAS sacrifice in Judaism forces us to address this argument.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have not read Sander's sources. As a lay reader I have accepted Sander's description.

You claimed:

And crucifixion reprieves did happen.

You now quote Sanders to support the proposition that Pilate could have issued a reprieve. All I wish to say at this point is ...

• I trust that you understand the difference between the two claims.
• I further trust that you understand that your initial claim remains unsupported.
• The assertion in gMk is not that Pilate demonstrated an arbitrary exercise of power but, rather, that Pilate was carrying out a tradition - a tradition for which there is, to the best of my knowledge, zero evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

You claimed:

​

You now quote Sanders to support the proposition that Pilate could have issued a reprieve. All I wish to say at this point is ...

• I trust that you understand the difference between the two claims.
• I further trust that you understand that your initial claim remains unsupported.
• The assertion in gMk is not that Pilate demonstrated an arbitrary exercise of power but, rather, that Pilate was carrying out a tradition - a tradition for which there is, to the best of my knowledge, zero evidence.

OK......
I am suggesting that there have been similar situations of reprieve. (example Josephus' successful appeal)
I am suggesting that Pilate had the power to make such a decision on his own, at (sort of) whim.
I understand that the report in G-Mark is all about Tradition, but (like you) I doubt that this was the case......., it happened because Pilate wished for it..... just like that. So if this happened, it happened because Pilate wanted it. He didn't even have to give a reason if he didn't want to. Not whim, more a decision based upon ....something that we don't know about.

I want to hold the possibilities.... don't want to chuck 'em.
Evangelists do seem to have fiddled with G-Mark, and (I think) they fiddled with this trial, interview, execution story. I think that there is a kernel of truth in there, surrounded by wooly bulldust.

So I think that the crucifixion was real..... but:-
Was there a crucifying of many insurrectionists? All those bound with Barabbas?
If it was only a trio, who were the brigands on either side?
If it was only a trio, who was in the middle?
Was the report of Pilate's wife interfering..... real?
Did Pilate find Jesus to be an innocent, caught up in something much nastier?

I want a retrial....... :biglaugh:
And I believe, that if there could be one, that I would see you there in the visitor's gallery. True?

 

[metis]

I'm reading between the lines with his sacrifice ideas, I don't personally think Jesus was a replacement of the 'heifer sacrifice', but this opinion is out there, regardless of further beliefs in Judaism concerning sacrifice.
The mere fact that there WAS sacrifice in Judaism forces us to address this argument.

I believe that it had to be metaphor for at least a couple of reasons, with one of them being that the use of metaphor is commonplace in our scripture.

A second reason would be the problem of what exactly was sacrificed with Jesus' crucifixion if it were taken literally: his personhood or his supposed divinity?

In regards to the former, human sacrifices have never been allowed in Judaism, and to the latter, how can God be sacrificed to God? OTOH, if taken as a metaphor, this could be "kosher".

 

[outhouse]

with one of them being that the use of metaphor is commonplace in our scripture.

.

The problem is, this was not your religion.

The was Helleistic Proselytes who wished to pervert Judaism to meet their own personal need's. Based on the nartyrdom of the Galilean. His crucifixion was viewed as a sacrifice for the good of the common hard working man.

Because mythology developed with metaphorical aspects, does not mean the crucifixion itself was metaphorical.

 

[steeltoes]

I believe that it had to be metaphor for at least a couple of reasons, with one of them being that the use of metaphor is commonplace in our scripture.

A second reason would be the problem of what exactly was sacrificed with Jesus' crucifixion if it were taken literally: his personhood or his supposed divinity?

In regards to the former, human sacrifices have never been allowed in Judaism, and to the latter, how can God be sacrificed to God? OTOH, if taken as a metaphor, this could be "kosher".

Apparently only a god could offer salvation to all humankind when it was sacrificed, and this was the Son of God that came to earth to be sacrificed in order to redeem mankind, so Jesus could have been a man that was crucified but he also could have been the Son of God that came to earth to be sacrificed in a completely metaphorical sense.

 

[Desert Snake]

Apparently only a god could offer salvation to all humankind when it was sacrificed, and this was the Son of God that came to earth to be sacrificed in order to redeem mankind, so Jesus could have been a man that was crucified but he also could have been the Son of God that came to earth to be sacrificed in a completely metaphorical sense.

Yep, the crucifixion might be the 'metaphorical' part of the narrative. It's amazing how resistant people are to this idea, I don't know why they think it isn't a metaphorical subject in mythology, in fact it's common. There has to be more to why the secular scholars want this to be "true", even if they proclaim everything else to be total fiction, it seems.
A list of non-logical assumption.
1. May not have been born in Bethlehem
2. Didn't perform miracles
3. No witness accounts
4. Spoke Greek? Hey why not
5. Nazareth? What's that?
6. Nazarenes? Huh?
7. Essenes? Say what? No, we don't even know if that's real!
8. Disciples, who knows, probably not. Maybe some random followers.
9. He made the Romans mad! Yeah that must be true!
10. The Jews must not have liked him!
O.k., so we have a possibly rebellious anonymous may be Jewish man who angered some Jewish Pharisees and angered the Romans, surrounded himself with illiterate followers apparently, and was crucified by the Romans with encouragement from some Jews. This grew IMMEDIATELY into a resurrection cult, and later some random Roman dude claiming to be Jewish wrote about him. The Gospels may as well be soup recipes, we don't even know who wrote them, all one person using various names? Written in Greek of course. None of the writings even copies of any witness accounts...

But that crucifixion...oh yeah, that MUST have happened!

 

[metis]

Apparently only a god could offer salvation to all humankind when it was sacrificed, and this was the Son of God that came to earth to be sacrificed in order to redeem mankind, so Jesus could have been a man that was crucified but he also could have been the Son of God that came to earth to be sacrificed in a completely metaphorical sense.

How can God be sacrificed to God, and where is the precedence for this? Maybe we're all Sons & Daughters of God?

To me, what Paul and the authors were most likely doing was to draw a parallel between Jesus being "sacrificed" (executed) in much the same way animals at the Temple were sacrificed, whereas Jesus then becomes the "final sacrifice" for his followers. Since the Temple sacrifices were for the sins of society (not personal sins), one can see the parallel of having Jesus' "sacrifice" being the sacrifice for all the world. IOW, it's value is in its symbolism.

 

[jtartar]

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?

disciple,
Immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve, God made a way for mankind to gain salvation that Adam lost. This is referred to in the first prophecy recorded in the Bible, Gen 3:15. The seed mentioned is Jesus who will be the one to throw Satan an his wicked angels into the Lake of Fire, Rev 20:10, 1John 3:8.
The theme of the whole Bible is The Kingdom, which will be ruled over by Jesus.
God allowed Jesus to come to earth and give his life for all mankind who would believe in him. This is called a Corresponding Ransom, because by Jesus giving his perfect life he bought back the perfect life that Adam lost when he rebelled against God, 1Tim 2:5, Matt 20:28.
So you see Jesus had to give his life for us to be able to live again, if we die, and for the ones who died a chance to live again, John 5:28,29, 2Cor 5:14,15.
Probably the most known scripture in the Bible tells us about Jesus, and all the ones who believe in him can have everlasting life, John 3:16. This scripture is called, by many people, The Gospel in Miniature, because it tells so much about God's purpose for the earth.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe that it had to be metaphor for at least a couple of reasons, with one of them being that the use of metaphor is commonplace in our scripture.

A second reason would be the problem of what exactly was sacrificed with Jesus' crucifixion if it were taken literally: his personhood or his supposed divinity?

In regards to the former, human sacrifices have never been allowed in Judaism, and to the latter, how can God be sacrificed to God? OTOH, if taken as a metaphor, this could be "kosher".

We're in agreement. This may put me in opposition to much of Christian proposed belief, but whatever.