why did they want to crucify jesus

[Bunyip]

I've been reading....

The above is abductive reasoning..... :yes:

You can't prove truth by showing credible scholar's statements.....

Credibility can be an attribute that any cheap trickster possesses. Has to have, in fact.

Scholar's are in serious contention over HJ.... as shown by your resolve to judge and ignore so many.

Statements are not proofs or evidences. Only evidence, however tenuous or faint, can be considered in relation to the question.

So you football teams of scholars are only as good as the evidence that they can show...... rather than their names. Read up on Abductive reasoning.... Come at it from another route...

Thankyou, I'm glad we could reach some common ground.

 

[paarsurrey]

Who invented the concept that if Jesus did not die on the Cross then Christianity is in vain?

Please quote from OT and or NT.

This is the concept to construct Jesus a god or son of god out of the thin air.

Others are welcome to reply and teach.

Jesus did die on the cross. That is the current state of the crucifixions historicity.

Scholars claim it as fact. As to where you have nothing credible at all!

You could not quote from Bible to support your argument. I do it for you:

1 Corinthians 15:16-17
…16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Romans 4:25
He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

This is the backbone of Pauline "Christianity"- a misnomer; which should be called Pauline Creed and it is based on Jesus' death on the Cross.

So Paul is the author of the modern Christianity that has got nothing with true teachings of Jesus and Mary; a mythical construct of Paul none else. It is not at all a fact that Jesus died on the Cross.

Jesus did not die on the Cross. Please Google for "Jesus did not die" and one will get a lot of evidence to support it.

Regads

 

[outhouse]

Jesus did not die on the Cross. Please Google for "Jesus did not die" and one will get a lot of evidence to support it.

Regads

Provide sources. There is Nothing credible in that whole google search.

Credible historians state Jesus died on a cross.

You need credible sources, not imagination.

 

[outhouse]

just google inference from best explanation or abductive reasoning and catch up to the conversation.

Post Links to your sources.

You dont get to steer anything here, to your personal methodology, including this debate.

 

[oldbadger]

Thankyou, I'm glad we could reach some common ground.

Of course we can.......
We can discuss what evidence is available.
We can discuss it's value.
We can explain how it might (or might not) affect our judgements, feelings, decisions etc.

And although we might end up with totally differing conclusions..... that's cool, because we have that right. It's all about respect for opinions, whilst actually picking up tidbits of info on the way. I love warm debate if it is kicking up info!

But scholar name chucking, claims for scholarly consensus, disrespect and insult don't help the debate at all...... some members can't grasp this....

 

[Sleeppy]

You could not quote from Bible to support your argument.

Mark 8

And he saith to them, `And ye -- who do ye say me to be?' and Peter answering saith to him, `Thou art the Christ.' And he strictly charged them that they may tell no one about it, and began to teach them, that it behoveth the Son of Man to suffer many things, and to be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and after three days to rise again.

Matthew 20

Lo, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the nations to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify, and the third day he will rise again.'

Then came near to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee, with her sons, bowing and asking something from him, and he said to her, `What wilt thou?' She saith to him, `Say, that they may sit -- these my two sons -- one on thy right hand, and one on the left, in thy reign.' And Jesus answering said, `Ye have not known what ye ask for yourselves; are ye able to drink of the cup that I am about to drink? and with the baptism that I am baptized with, to be baptized?' They say to him, `We are able.' And he saith to them, `Of my cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism that I am baptized with ye shall be baptized; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but -- to those for whom it hath been prepared by my father.'

Mark 14

And Jesus said, `Let her alone; why are ye giving her trouble? a good work she wrought on me; for the poor always ye have with you, and whenever ye may will ye are able to do them good, but me ye have not always; what she could she did, she anticipated to anoint my body for the embalming. Verily I say to you, wherever this good news may be proclaimed in the whole world, what also this woman did shall be spoken of -- for a memorial of her.'

And as they are eating, Jesus having taken bread, having blessed, brake, and gave to them, and said, `Take, eat; this is my body.' And having taken the cup, having given thanks, he gave to them, and they drank of it -- all; and he said to them, `This is my blood of the new covenant, which for many is being poured out; verily I say to you, that no more may I drink of the produce of the vine till that day when I may drink it new in the reign of God.'

And having sung an hymn, they went forth to the mount of the Olives, and Jesus saith to them -- `All ye shall be stumbled at me this night, because it hath been written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad, but after my having risen I will go before you to Galilee.'


And Peter said to him, `And if all shall be stumbled, yet not I;' And Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, that to-day, this night, before a **** shall crow twice, thrice thou shalt deny me.' And he spake the more vehemently, `If it may be necessary for me to die with thee -- I will in nowise deny thee;' and in like manner also said they all.

And he taketh Peter, and James, and John with him, and began to be amazed, and to be very heavy, and he saith to them, `Exceeding sorrowful is my soul -- to death; remain here, and watch.' And having gone forward a little, he fell upon the earth, and was praying, that, if it be possible the hour may pass from him, and he said, `Abba, Father; all things are possible to Thee; make this cup pass from me; but, not what I will, but what Thou.'

Jesus predicts his death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jesus also named John the Baptist the greatest prophet born of a woman:

Matthew 11

Verily I say to you, there hath not risen, among those born of women, a greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the reign of the heavens is greater than he.

Matthew 14

And she having been instigated by her mother -- `Give me (says she) here upon a plate the head of John the Baptist; and the king was grieved, but because of the oaths and of those reclining with him, he commanded [it] to be given; and having sent, he beheaded John in the prison, and his head was brought upon a plate, and was given to the damsel, and she brought [it] nigh to her mother.

The greatest prophet, according to the Messiah, was beheaded.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus did not die on the Cross. Please Google for "Jesus did not die" and one will get a lot of evidence to support it.

I will do this...... because there are a number of faint possibilities that need to be pursued. There's no order to these.........
1. It is written that Pilate did not think Jesus was guilty.
2. Pilate's wife gave him instructions.
3. Pilate reprieved 'Jesus, Son of the Father.'
4. Joseph of Arimathea may have taken down a live Jesus.
5. Judas may have been crucified instead.
6. Jesus might have been reprieved and exiled to Gaul with Mary, where they had a daughter.
7. Jesus got clear away to Kashmir, where he lived and died.....
8. Jesus might have died on the cross, and Joseph took his body away before Mary returned.
...... there could be more..... but I have an open mind.

 

[Bunyip]

Post Links to your sources.

You dont get to steer anything here, to your personal methodology, including this debate.

You are not participating in this debate sparky, you just whine, accuse, pontificate and evade.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course we can.......
We can discuss what evidence is available.
We can discuss it's value.
We can explain how it might (or might not) affect our judgements, feelings, decisions etc.

And although we might end up with totally differing conclusions..... that's cool, because we have that right. It's all about respect for opinions, whilst actually picking up tidbits of info on the way. I love warm debate if it is kicking up info!

But scholar name chucking, claims for scholarly consensus, disrespect and insult don't help the debate at all...... some members can't grasp this....

Yes, and of course THAT debate is interesting and informative, unlike the schoolyard dribble that tends to overflow any attempt at genuine discourse on this matter.

 

[outhouse]

You are not participating in this debate sparky, you just whine, accuse, pontificate and evade.

Please put the mirror down. This is not helping you or anyone for that matter.

 

[nash8]

No offence, but you complain almost to the complete exclusion of actual engagement.
Most of your posts are a gripe of some form, but never actually on point.

Seriously mate, you are being silly - just google inference from best explanation or abductive reasoning and catch up to the conversation.

I actually learn A LOT from his posts. It is only in response to your posts that outhouse gets a lil' ***** lol. Which seems to be a common theme with a lot of people that interact with you on the forums.

First of all you make no argument other than "we don't know", and when you do make arguments other than this you provide 0 links for why you believe what you do. Granted you don't have to have evidence to believe something, but why come on a debate forum?

I actually googled "inference on historical Jesus", and the first page was pretty much garbage. All of the links but two, talked about inference concerning the "faith based" beliefs regarding Jesus. These have nothing to do with what were talking about.

When the “best explanation” is the worst explanation | Open Parachute

This guy is talking about how bad the "best explanation argument is, and in the first line he quotes another web page regarding the teleological arguments and totally misses the authors entire point. The author of that page was not arguing that theism was more probable due to the "new" teleological argument, but rather that neither the new, nor the old argument was a better explanation. He was actually arguing that the new argument was easier to be accepted due to lack of a weak analogy, as well as other "social" constructions. He then goes on to make arguments about a "testable" theory. In science I agree, but how would you test whether Jesus was a real person?

Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus - Google Books

This link was actually very good. You should read that one. It explains exactly why we are trying to get you to "explain the evidence".

• 
  Provide sources. There is Nothing credible in that whole google search.
  
  Credible historians state Jesus died on a cross.
  
  You need credible sources, not imagination.

• 
  
  1. Precedent - Josephus requested people to be taken down from crucifixion. So it is within the realm of possibility that Pilate could have to.
  
  2. Remark by Pilate that Jesus spent a short time on cross. Death on the cross was generally by asphyxiation. This could only occur when a person was exhausted to the point where they could not hold their head up, in other words, it would generally take a while.
  
  3. The above is justified by the criterion of embarrassment, that Jesus could not last on the cross longer than two criminals.
  
  4. You have emphasis in the gospels of a physical bodily resurrection, which was not necessarily a core tenet in early Christian theology, as evidenced by the Pauline Epistles. The best explanation of a physical resurrection is that Jesus did not actually die.
  
  There's more than this, but my computer's about to automatically restart. While I agree that these are not the "most plausible" situations. They are nonetheless, plausible, and within the realm of reason considering the evidence we have.
  
  

  You are not participating in this debate sparky, you just whine, accuse, pontificate and evade.

  
  And you do the same thing. And outhouse has never evaded one of my questions, and I always learn a lot from his responses. I still don't agree with his view, but at least he provides evidence to support his opinions. You don't provide anything. All you do is say "we don't know", or make an ad hom attack, or whine about Outhouse "appealing to authority". Refute his appeals to authority with legitimate arguments, and quit getting *****.

 

[Bunyip]

I actually learn A LOT from his posts. It is only in response to your posts that outhouse gets a lil' ***** lol. Which seems to be a common theme with a lot of people that interact with you on the forums.

Nonsense, he does the same to many other people.

First of all you make no argument other than "we don't know", and when you do make arguments other than this you provide 0 links for why you believe what you do. Granted you don't have to have evidence to believe something, but why come on a debate forum?

I actually googled "inference on historical Jesus", and the first page was pretty much garbage. All of the links but two, talked about inference concerning the "faith based" beliefs regarding Jesus. These have nothing to do with what were talking about.

When the “best explanation” is the worst explanation | Open Parachute

This guy is talking about how bad the "best explanation argument is, and in the first line he quotes another web page regarding the teleological arguments and totally misses the authors entire point. The author of that page was not arguing that theism was more probable due to the "new" teleological argument, but rather that neither the new, nor the old argument was a better explanation. He was actually arguing that the new argument was easier to be accepted due to lack of a weak analogy, as well as other "social" constructions. He then goes on to make arguments about a "testable" theory. In science I agree, but how would you test whether Jesus was a real person?

Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus - Google Books

This link was actually very good. You should read that one. It explains exactly why we are trying to get you to "explain the evidence".

Yes and 'getting me to explain the evidence' is ABDUCTIVE REASONING, it shows that you are drawing your conclusion fromthe inference to the best evidence and thus are commiting a fallacy.

1. Precedent - Josephus requested people to be taken down from crucifixion. So it is within the realm of possibility that Pilate could have to.

2. Remark by Pilate that Jesus spent a short time on cross. Death on the cross was generally by asphyxiation. This could only occur when a person was exhausted to the point where they could not hold their head up, in other words, it would generally take a while.

3. The above is justified by the criterion of embarrassment, that Jesus could not last on the cross longer than two criminals.

4. You have emphasis in the gospels of a physical bodily resurrection, which was not necessarily a core tenet in early Christian theology, as evidenced by the Pauline Epistles. The best explanation of a physical resurrection is that Jesus did not actually die.

There's more than this, but my computer's about to automatically restart. While I agree that these are not the "most plausible" situations. They are nonetheless, plausible, and within the realm of reason considering the evidence we have.

More examples of abductive reasoning. And it is a fallacy to draw conclusions from abductive reasoning.

You and outhouse need to catch uo to the conversation and learn about abductive reasoning ajd its limitations BEFORE either of you question anybody elses knowledge.

Sooner or later both of you are going to finally figure out that my position on this issue has in fact been correct all along.

 

[oldbadger]

1. Precedent - Josephus requested people to be taken down from crucifixion. So it is within the realm of possibility that Pilate could have to.

2. Remark by Pilate that Jesus spent a short time on cross. Death on the cross was generally by asphyxiation. This could only occur when a person was exhausted to the point where they could not hold their head up, in other words, it would generally take a while.

3. The above is justified by the criterion of embarrassment, that Jesus could not last on the cross longer than two criminals.

4. You have emphasis in the gospels of a physical bodily resurrection, which was not necessarily a core tenet in early Christian theology, as evidenced by the Pauline Epistles. The best explanation of a physical resurrection is that Jesus did not actually die.

Yes....... we can't overlook all these interesting reports. The more I think about it, so the more I wonder whether Pilate could have had a motive for keeping Jesus alive. ..........
I wonder what Pilate thought about 20,000 priests all reaping (not so?) little backhanders off the Temple visitors. Did he like to see the priesthood just a little shaken and stirred....from time to time?
Pilate had to be a businesss-man, managing a steady flow of funds back to Rome.... if he was achieving that without high risk of civil commotion then Rome would have been pleased.
Did Pilate wonder whether he could use the Temple commotion to propose to the Chief Priest that a little more Roman involvement would help?

I'm beginning to feel that Pilate enjoyed this situation. He actually rekindled a relationship with Antipas over this by sending Jesus off to have a chat with Antipas... who clearly wanted some inclusion in the event.

This is not clear cut at all.......

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes....... we can't overlook all these interesting reports. The more I think about it, so the more I wonder whether Pilate could have had a motive for keeping Jesus alive. ..........
I wonder what Pilate thought about 20,000 priests all reaping (not so?) little backhanders off the Temple visitors. Did he like to see the priesthood just a little shaken and stirred....from time to time?
Pilate had to be a businesss-man, managing a steady flow of funds back to Rome.... if he was achieving that without high risk of civil commotion then Rome would have been pleased.
Did Pilate wonder whether he could use the Temple commotion to propose to the Chief Priest that a little more Roman involvement would help?

I'm beginning to feel that Pilate enjoyed this situation. He actually rekindled a relationship with Antipas over this by sending Jesus off to have a chat with Antipas... who clearly wanted some inclusion in the event.

This is not clear cut at all.......

Exactly. Now my other thread concerning the crucifixion doesn't seem so 'wild' , does it?

Ahaahahahahha

 

[Bunyip]

Yes....... we can't overlook all these interesting reports. The more I think about it, so the more I wonder whether Pilate could have had a motive for keeping Jesus alive. ..........
I wonder what Pilate thought about 20,000 priests all reaping (not so?) little backhanders off the Temple visitors. Did he like to see the priesthood just a little shaken and stirred....from time to time?
Pilate had to be a businesss-man, managing a steady flow of funds back to Rome.... if he was achieving that without high risk of civil commotion then Rome would have been pleased.
Did Pilate wonder whether he could use the Temple commotion to propose to the Chief Priest that a little more Roman involvement would help?

I'm beginning to feel that Pilate enjoyed this situation. He actually rekindled a relationship with Antipas over this by sending Jesus off to have a chat with Antipas... who clearly wanted some inclusion in the event.

This is not clear cut at all.......

One thing is clear from the NT, and that is that Jesus had no fear of the priesthood whatsoever. He was perfectly happy to provoke them. I would imagine that Pilate could have seen the possibilities that such a wedge beteeen the populace and the established might of the priesthood would offer him. The baptisms in the lambs pool, at the very foot of the temple were as deliberate an affront to the priesthood as was his casting out of the money lenders.

 

[oldbadger]

Exactly. Now my other thread concerning the crucifixion doesn't seem so 'wild' , does it?

Ahaahahahahha

I've been wondering about the crucifixion for decades.
Your thread..... wild? I've forgotten about it.
It was forgettable.

I've even forgotten what you believe in..... sorry.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've been wondering about the crucifixion for decades.
Your thread..... wild? I've forgotten about it.
It was forgettable.

I've even forgotten what you believe in..... sorry.

Lol..

No need to be sorry, you generally don't seem to want to find actual answers anyway.

 

[oldbadger]

One thing is clear from the NT, and that is that Jesus had no fear of the priesthood whatsoever. He was perfectly happy to provoke them. I would imagine that Pilate could have seen the possibilities that such a wedge beteeen the populace and the established might of the priesthood would offer him. .

Well put...... the question is...... how to make sense of it all now. Which pieces are real..... and which are junk?

If Pilate was a clever schemer (and I reckon he was) then he would have kept his cards close to his chest, and figuring this little lot out was going to be hard... even at that time.

The baptisms in the lambs pool, at the very foot of the temple were as deliberate an affront to the priesthood as was his casting out of the money lenders

Hang on...... nobody has mentioned this...... I've missed this. Can you give a lat and long on that?

 

[Bunyip]

Well put...... the question is...... how to make sense of it all now. Which pieces are real..... and which are junk?

If Pilate was a clever schemer (and I reckon he was) then he would have kept his cards close to his chest, and figuring this little lot out was going to be hard... even at that time.


Hang on...... nobody has mentioned this...... I've missed this. Can you give a lat and long on that?

My dear Sir, look at Pilate's job.

Were he not a cunning schemer he would not be both alive and thus employed. He was far from home in an alien culture in the midst of a multifaceted sectarian conflict of brobdingnabian proportions and subtlety.

As to the pool, it's the bit where JC was bathing whores and beggars and telling them that they were no longer unclean. To be unclean excluded a person from most of Jewish society, the law, the temple etc. To be washing people and telling them that their banning from the temple was now over, in a pool about 30 ft away from the temple alter is about as provocative a stunt as is possible to imagine.

 

[oldbadger]

My dear Sir, look at Pilate's job.

Were he not a cunning schemer he would not be both alive and thus employed. He was far from home in an alien culture in the midst of a multifaceted sectarian conflict of brobdingnabian proportions and subtlety.

I agree...... He did not have that much military back-up..... a base at Caesarea and the small fortress beside the Temple. He could never have quelled a full-on uprising........ that would have been difficult for the Syrian Legate, even...... and so...... diplomacy.... cunning...... yeah....

As to the pool, it's the bit where JC was bathing whores and beggars and telling them that they were no longer unclean. To be unclean excluded a person from most of Jewish society, the law, the temple etc. To be washing people and telling them that their banning from the temple was now over, in a pool about 30 ft away from the temple alter is about as provocative a stunt as is possible to imagine.

I've just been winging through the gospels, looking for the mention of this,..... I've found mention of the pools of Bethesda and Siloam...... just need to root about a bit. This has not been mentioned before...... and I do want to find it.

Cheers. All good stuff.

I'll be back in a few hours to see how this is developing....