Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[outhouse]

However, I will say from what I have gathered, there is a fairly decent amount of information we know about crucifixions, and that generally speaking, it was designed to be a slow, painful way to die where your suffered for an extended period of time and generally died from asphyxiation.


.

Remember, this would all depend on how badly a person was beaten, as to if they could hold themselves up enough to breath.

We really do not trust the accounts provided as far as how long he was up there.

How many different ways could a person be crucified that you know of, and why would one person receive one type of crucifixion instead of an other?

Some tied to a pole.

Some impaled through the groin area and planted in the ground looking much like a human corndog.


Some to a T shape

Read the wiki link on it for a better description.

But from what I've gathered, the scholarly census is that Pilate did order the execution of Jesus

Nope

The consensus is that any part of Pilate is fictional, only that he was in power at the time of Jesus death.

A peasant trouble maker would not need a trial, nor go all the way to the top.

Caiaphas and Pilate had better and more important things to do

Also, what's your opinion on this article?

Garbage.

Why would a physical reincarnation be emphasized in this scripture as opposed to a spiritual reincarnation used in the other gospels. Especially considering Luke is one of the more historically relevant/accurate Gospels.

Luke is not viewed as being any more accurate then others.

That book is viewed as massive amounts of rhetoric and as a added layer on top of a historical core with heavy use of fictional additions.


Again, the early movement had many different views depending on where you lived. There was no orthodoxy.

 

[outhouse]

There is very little solid evidence for the crucifixion. That it is a scholarly consensus is a common apologist claim, but it doesn't magically make any extra evidence appear.


.

It is also a common claim for every credible historian as well.


There is plenty of evidence for the crucifixion.



There is often no such thing as solid evidence regarding much of the past. BUT, there is a huge difference between "solid", and lacking. We are not lacking here. The gospels themselves are great sources for evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

Ok... Questions.

Paul could have been Hellenist?

Also any chance that story of Judas of Galilee was combine into the story of Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

Ok... Questions.

Paul could have been Hellenist?

Also any chance that story of Judas of Galilee was combine into the story of Jesus?

I get mixed up....

There was a Judas of Galilee and a Judas, son of Ezekia (ius?)

I think that Judas barEzekia took and held Sepphoris in 4BC in an uprising after King Herod's death. It failed when the Syrian legate sent a large force of circa two legions to sort it.

I think Judas of Galilee held a revolt over taxation in 6CE....... but that would need support from other members.

So both would have been too old to confuse with Jesus. But there were many Galilean zealots, and Jesus Barabbas could well have been the one that was confused with Jesus.

 

[Nakosis]

Just a link I found trying to see if anyone else thought there might be a link between Jesus and Judas of Galilee....

40 Similarities Between Jesus and Judas the Galilean – 6-10 | The Three Messiahs

 

[steeltoes]

It is also a common claim for every credible historian as well.


There is plenty of evidence for the crucifixion.



There is often no such thing as solid evidence regarding much of the past. BUT, there is a huge difference between "solid", and lacking. We are not lacking here. The gospels themselves are great sources for evidence.

It's totally absurd to make such a statement.

Stating that the gospels are evidence for what the gospels claim is circular reasoning.

Outhouse claiming that there is evidence for the crucifixion is not evidence of anything except for hollow, baseless, and unsubstantiated claims that there is evidence.

Present the evidence outhouse.

Displays of circular reasoning only go to show that you are not the least bit credible.

 

[steeltoes]

There is plenty of evidence for the crucifixion.

Then present some.



.

 

[steeltoes]

There are some forums wherein posts that make claims of evidence without presenting it are deleted which is probably why outhouse chooses to post here.

 

[Nakosis]

There are some forums wherein posts that make claims of evidence without presenting it are deleted which is probably why outhouse chooses to post here.

Here's a reference for you...

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Ok... Questions.

Paul could have been Hellenist?

Also any chance that story of Judas of Galilee was combine into the story of Jesus?

Paul was a Hellenist.

He was a Roman citizen, who was born, educated, and traveled the empire.


His Judaism is in question, as to how much or what kind of Jew he might have been, but not how Hellenistic he was. They don't get anymore Hellenistic.




No real connection to Judas other then they were both in Galilee, and were both probably Zealots. Which just happens to give them many similarities.

 

[steeltoes]

Here's a reference for you...

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've known of Tacitus on Christ for many years. Outhouse doesn't refer to it because he knows that it's late, much later than the gospels were written, and that Tacitus is merely passing along common beliefs of the Christians of that time.

Outhouse is not presenting any evidence because he can't.

 

[Nakosis]

Paul was a Hellenist.

He was a Roman citizen, who was born, educated, and traveled the empire.


His Judaism is in question, as to how much or what kind of Jew he might have been, but not how Hellenistic he was. They don't get anymore Hellenistic.

I recall Paul claiming to be a Benjamite. Lost tribe, very vague way of claiming to be a Jew.

No real connection to Judas other then they were both in Galilee, and were both probably Zealots. Which just happens to give them many similarities.

Wasn't originally thinking about them being the same person just by the time the Jesus story put to writing maybe some melding of the two stories.

 

[Quagmire]

I recall Paul claiming to be a Benjamite. Lost tribe, very vague way of claiming to be a Jew.

Actually, Benjamin was one of the only two tribes of Israel (Judah being the other) that wasn't one of the lost tribes.

Ten Lost Tribes of Israel -- Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[Bunyip]

It is also a common claim for every credible historian as well.


There is plenty of evidence for the crucifixion.

So you keep saying. However neither you nor anybody else here has identified anything more than a few words in Tacitus and Josephus.

There is often no such thing as solid evidence regarding much of the past.

Sure, and the crucifixion is a good example.

BUT, there is a huge difference between "solid", and lacking. We are not lacking here. The gospels themselves are great sources for evidence.

No the gospels do not count, you can't use a book to prove itself.

Why not identify this evidence you imagine exist?

Leaving aside the few words in Josephus and Tacitus (both of whom are from a generation after the crucifixion, and thus a long way from being witnesses) and the gospels there has yet to be any evidence presented. I see a great deal of the claim that the scholars are certain - but nobody seems able to present anyof the evidence they are so certain about.

 

[outhouse]

No the gospels do not count, you can't use a book to prove itself.

.

:biglaugh:



So there is no historical information in any of them???????

 

[Bunyip]

:biglaugh:



So there is no historical information in any of them???????

Let me make it clear.

1. What I am saying is; You can not use a book to prove its own claims.

2. What I did not say is; There is no historical information in any book.

1. and 2. are completely different and unrelated claims,- my claim was 1.

To establish the historicity of an event described in an old book, historians seek evidence to support that event outside of the book. In the case of the crucifixion. they have found very, very little.

 

[steeltoes]

Let me make it clear.

1. What I am saying is; You can not use a book to prove its own claims.

2. What I did not say is; There is no historical information in any book.

1. and 2. are completely different and unrelated claims,- my claim was 1.

To establish the historicity of an event described in an old book, historians seek evidence to support that event outside of the book. In the case of the crucifixion. they have found very, very little.

Outhouse obviously believes that we can use the same book to prove its own claims, absurd as that is.

 

[Bunyip]

Outhouse obviously believes that we can use the same book to prove its own claims, absurd as that is.

Dismissing any argument by simply stating that the scholars all agree is a great deal easier than actually engaging on what evidence there is.

I do not recall any poll of scholars, and think it is safe to assume that the what is happening is quite simply that the notion;

Most scholars believe that the crucifixion may have been a historical event.

Is being equated tl the far less likely notion that all scholars believe the case for the historical cricufion to be unassailably evidential. Which is to say the least, an imaginative stretch of herculen proportions.

 

[outhouse]

To establish the historicity of an event described in an old book, historians seek evidence to support that event outside of the book. In the case of the crucifixion. they have found very, very little.

Correct.

But that does not mean the books themselves are devoid of historical evidence.



We have a movement away from Judaism that factually started about the exact same time as the NT states it did.

There is no replacement hypothesis that explains this movement the way the NT does.

No one is saying take it all in as evidence. No one is saying we should attribute historicity blindly. What we are saying is that there is no replacement hypothesis that makes any sense what so ever.

There is no reason to fake anything about a Galilean traveling teacher, and nothing at all is out of sink with the political turmoil that put the man on the cross.

There is a total of evidence that puts the man on the cross to the point of almost factual.

 

[steeltoes]

Correct.

But that does not mean the books themselves are devoid of historical evidence.



We have a movement away from Judaism that factually started about the exact same time as the NT states it did.

There is no replacement hypothesis that explains this movement the way the NT does.

No one is saying take it all in as evidence. No one is saying we should attribute historicity blindly. What we are saying is that there is no replacement hypothesis that makes any sense what so ever.

There is no reason to fake anything about a Galilean traveling teacher, and nothing at all is out of sink with the political turmoil that put the man on the cross.

There is a total of evidence that puts the man on the cross to the point of almost factual.

Nonsense, we have a narrative, a story about a miracle working Son of God, with no way of knowing if any of it is true, except you of course because you read is as if it is non-fiction.