Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[steeltoes]

They're telling us that the most important part is fiction, but we should believe the other narrative, to their speculation...it's ridiculous.

Yes, and they call it history.

 

[Desert Snake]

whatever other crazy beliefs your faith forces upon your mind.

ooh the nasty side emerges. You should really take a break, imo.

 

[Prophet]

ooh the nasty side emerges. You should really take a break, imo.

Agreeed on both accounts! I really should take a break from debating against crazyland, fundieville, backwards-thinking, science pooh-poohing, ID advocating nitwits. Stupidity gets on my nerves.

 

[Desert Snake]

Agreeed on both accounts! I really should take a break from debating against crazyland, fundieville, backwards-thinking, science pooh-poohing, ID advocating nitwits. Stupidity gets on my nerves.

lol.....

 

[steeltoes]

Agreeed on both accounts! I really should take a break from debating against crazyland, fundieville, backwards-thinking, science pooh-poohing, ID advocating nitwits. Stupidity gets on my nerves.

Well, there you have it.

 

[Prophet]

They're telling us that the most important part is fiction, but we should believe the other narrative, to their speculation...it's ridiculous.

Is that what you think the most important part of Jesus' story is? Not his message that showed us how we are to treat each other as brothers even if we are enemies? No, for you the important part is something like "pledge allegiance to Jesus and he'll protect you from the punishment you deserve with a blood sacrifice". Your religion sounds pretty selfish and worthless. Coming from a backwards perspective like yours, I rightly wear a charge of ridiculousness from you like a badge of honor.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is that what you think the most important part of Jesus' story is? Not his message that showed us how we are to treat each other as brothers even if we are enemies? You think the important part is something like "pledge allegiance to Jesus and he'll protect you from the punishment you deserve with a blood sacrifice"? Your religion sounds pretty selfish and worthless. Coming from a backwards perspective like yours, I rightly wear a charge of ridiculousness from you like a badge of honor.

Why are you still talking at me? Do you always do that to people you hate?
The conversation is over, move on....lol

 

[Desert Snake]

Agreeed on both accounts! I really should take a break from debating against crazyland, fundieville, backwards-thinking, science pooh-poohing, ID advocating nitwits. Stupidity gets on my nerves.

Btw, your little rant is off topic...

 

[Prophet]

You deem important the elements of Christianity that separate you from heathens when the entire message of Jesus is centered around seeing those heathens and other such enemies as part of you. While Jesus tells us to "love our enemies and pray for people who persecute you", your version of Christianity tells us that it is more central to believe an all-loving God casts his poorly behaved children into eternal torture.

You call yourself a follower of Jesus, but your beliefs expose you as a pretender such as the people he spoke of in this passage:

42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Goodness is supposed to unite beings. Beings who believe goodness is meant to separate themselves from the evil use the sin of others as a counterweight for their own holiness, to exalt themselves. This is the hallmark of the religious hypocrite.

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please keep in mind rules 1, 3, and 11:

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.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

​

 

[Nakosis]

It isn't reasonable. It's speculation that deviates from texts, without any historical backup.

Not saying I agree with the position, just that it is a position a reasonable person might take. My own position is much less reasonable but I get hoping to find something to support it.

If there is no expectation of truth from the gospels, why even assume some Jewish rebel scenario in the first place? Even if you do assume that, why pick & choose certain things to believe and not others?

Just being honest. Still I keep hoping to find something to cause me to think otherwise. Therefore my interest in your argument.

My position is simple, I think the Josephus account of Jesus, from the Antiquities, is 'fact' according to him..He doesn't mention a resurrection, but does indicate survival from the cross....take that as you will, but none of these narratives support the often repeated 'anonymous etc, Jewish man turned myth because the followers couldn't rectify their leader being crucified blah blah blah' it doesn't make sense to me.
That isn't how the 'religion' would have started. The timeline is far too short for man-to-mythos anyway.

You can read it such as such. However how you understand Josephus is a matter of bias as much as anything.

Not sure we really know the timeline. Some speculation that "Jesus" may have lived many years earlier. That's all I really see, speculation and bias. So one story is as good as another to me.

Anyway for my position, it doesn't matter whether Jesus died on the cross or not. So no vested interest here. To me, what matters about Jesus is what he taught.

Here is a question though... You are taking the position which seems most reasonable to you. Ok fine however if it is reasonable, do you really need agreement from others to validate it?

 

[outhouse]

To me, what matters about Jesus is what he taught.

Which is another can of worms.

We dont know what he taught.


We have a Hellenistic version and that is it.


Its my opinion much of what we know were JtB teaching and or any other Galilean version of Judaism in the parables were left with. Accuracy was not important as much as having a popular version that Hellenist wanted.

We want to think that Q and Thoman give us a glimpse, but a "possible" glimpse is as good as it gets.

 

[Desert Snake]

You can read it such as such. However how you understand Josephus is a matter of bias as much as anything.

Well, it's just how I interpret the writing..it doesn't look like forgery to me, at all.

Anyway for my position, it doesn't matter whether Jesus died on the cross or not. So no vested interest here. To me, what matters about Jesus is what he taught.

We're on the same page here...basically.

Here is a question though... You are taking the position which seems most reasonable to you. Ok fine however if it is reasonable, do you really need agreement from others to validate it?

Not at all. Merely debating out of interest.

 

[Nakosis]

Which is another can of worms.

We dont know what he taught.


We have a Hellenistic version and that is it.


Its my opinion much of what we know were JtB teaching and or any other Galilean version of Judaism in the parables were left with. Accuracy was not important as much as having a popular version that Hellenist wanted.

We want to think that Q and Thoman give us a glimpse, but a "possible" glimpse is as good as it gets.

We have the Bible. It doesn't matter the source. Someone put the words into writing. A person finds value in the words themselves or they do not.

 

[outhouse]

We have the Bible. It doesn't matter the source. Someone put the words into writing. A person finds value in the words themselves or they do not.

Im not debating the value, I understand that part.

But having a book, and then making claims about it, does not mean you have any historical evidence to make those claims.

 

[Nakosis]

Which is another can of worms.

We dont know what he taught.


We have a Hellenistic version and that is it.


Its my opinion much of what we know were JtB teaching and or any other Galilean version of Judaism in the parables were left with. Accuracy was not important as much as having a popular version that Hellenist wanted.

We want to think that Q and Thoman give us a glimpse, but a "possible" glimpse is as good as it gets.

Just thinking, is your interest academic? Otherwise what does it matter if Hellenistic or Judaism is the source.

Sorry, I've just come across a number who argue that what Jesus taught was appropriate for a Jewish Rabbi to teach.

Why couldn't of Jesus have been a Hellenized Jew?

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, I've just come across a number who argue that what Jesus taught was appropriate for a Jewish Rabbi to teach.

Why couldn't of Jesus have been a Hellenized Jew?

Care to explain further?

 

[outhouse]

Just thinking, is your interest academic?

yes.

Why couldn't of Jesus have been a Hellenized Jew?

All Jews were partially Hellenistic.

But in Jesus case, Hellenist were his mortal enemies.


Where he lived in Galilee was not oppressed by Romans as much as known Hellenist, Antipas.

They oppressed every bit as much as Romans if not worse. The socioeconomic divide was between rich and poverty and starving was massive. Galileans had a reputation for fighting the Hellenist and thus the peasant class was viewed as Zealot rebels, this made thing worse for them.

We see Sepphoris as the jewel of Galilee where Hellenist lived in wealth, and then we have Nzareth where peasants lived in extreme poverty.

When Jesus went to the temple and caused his disturbance, it was due to the Hellenistic corruption of the governement who worked hand in hand with the Romans, as the Romans placed Caiaphas in power.


The earliest authors were Roman citizens, writing to and for a Roman audience. They were the mortal enemies of Jesus. The movement had nothing to do with what a Galilean Jew taught, and everything with Hellenist who found importance in his death at passover and martyrdom,a nd the mytghology that grew around the martyrdom in the decades FOLLOWING his death.

It was not about his teachings, it was more about his selfless actions in the temple the Hellenist built their theology around.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry, I've just come across a number who argue that what Jesus taught was appropriate for a Jewish Rabbi to teach.

We know very little of what he may have taught.

We believe it was about the coming kingdom of god, but in what context this was taught by him is unknown. The books contradict themselves in exactly what this really was.

It was an apocalyptic movement, and that is what happened when the temple fell, much of traditional Judaism was wiped out.

 

[Nakosis]

We know very little of what he may have taught.

We believe it was about the coming kingdom of god, but in what context this was taught by him is unknown. The books contradict themselves in exactly what this really was.

It was an apocalyptic movement, and that is what happened when the temple fell, much of traditional Judaism was wiped out.

So what was traditional Judaism? Do we really know?
Traditional like there is a Traditional Christianity?

There was a number of Religious sects at the "time" of Jesus. Which was traditional Judaism?

I'm not sure we really know. The Judaism we have to day is it anymore the legitimate religion of Moses then Christianity is?

Personally I think one has no more claim then the other. Just traditionally both want to believe otherwise.

The Torah was a primitive belief system. Why claim the connection?

Not saying you are. Just asking for an opinion.