Jesus has bandwagon theory.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Jesus has bandwagon theory.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I am just pointing out how absurd it is to make a claim that all scholars agree on something, and then exclude from 'all scholars' any scholars who do not agree.
Which is what you are doing.
I have read the book you refer to, it is not very convincing. There is not a great deal of evidence for tye historicity of Jesus, no matter how much wishful thinking you throw at it.
You haven't provided any evidence for the crucifixion, just that scholars believe it.
You have no credibility.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Doesn't the Bible quote Pilate as to making some remark regarding the short length of time Jesus spent on the cross? Didn't it usually take people far longer to die on the cross than the short time he spent on the cross?
In one of the Gospels, I believe it is Luke 24, Jesus appears to the disciples after the resurrection and asks for fish. He goes out of his way to prove to the disciples that his resurrection was physical.
What is your opinion of this part of the Luke Outhouse? Considering the Bible was written, or at the least, revised into it's final edition by Hellenistic Jews, why would they include/leave in this particular piece of the gospel? Does it add to the resurrection being real? Thus creating a more "God-like" appearance of Jesus? How do scholars generally view Luke historically speaking? Isn't Luke considered to be one of the more historically accurate accounts? Why would the author of Luke leave in this particular story. Did the author of Luke seek to make the resurrection more "real", in order to justify Paul's "death and resurrection for atonement" theory that he seemed to be pushing?
Secondly their is a essay written on this subject that does not receive as much attention as I believe it deserves.
Jesus An Essene: Jesus An Essene
It's long and arduous, and it speaks on a lot more subjects than the one at hand, but it does make a very valid argument for Jesus' surviving the crucifixion about 2/3 into the article. Although, the author might have been crazy lol, he seems nonetheless very intelligent.
Interesting with the Bar Abba stuff, especially with regard to all of the BarAbba stuff in the Bible. How/what is the translation of Bar Abba into English? AKA in what language does Bar Abba mean son of the father?
So you're merely picking and choosing what to believe, and what not to believe, to fit your own narrative?
okayyyyyyyyyy....thanks for responding.
To Outhouse' defense, there is little to no evidence that Jesus traveled far outside of the area of Galilee, if at all. Sephordis (excuse my spelling) is the farthest that he would have likely traveled if he was truly a mason of some sort, as that would have been where all the work would have been. There are definitely some loose associations, but nothing definitive.
However, that does not in any regard, mean that Jesus did not travel, or survive the cross physically, contrary to what the "scholars" say is "fact". There is no such thing as "fact" when it comes to history, especially that of the history of antiquity. We know that is possible for a person to travel basically all the places where Jesus is said to have traveled, because other people had traveled to all of these places in the same time period, and within the same frame of time, that Jesus would have been doing so. So it is definitely possible for him to have traveled to these areas, but there is no definitive evidence saying that he did.
The scholars, in my opinion, lack imagination in constructing the life of Jesus. Granted, they do give us the most "likely" story of what Jesus' life was like, but what was "likely" about a peasant Jew becoming one of, if not the, most influential characters in all of human history. When you are studying extraordinary people, ordinary goes out the window, by definition, in my opinion.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Do you know of any scholars besides Price and Carrier that make that claim?
There is less then a handful of others. Verses thousands of credible scholars.
That makes it a consensus.
Do you call all apologist scholars? Its the same as calling creation scientist credible. Do you call of those credible scientist???
Your welcome to that opinion, I just don't see that. The world doesn't see it that way.
Like it or not, the man currently has historicity, discounting evidence you know little about, changes nothing.
outhouse
Atheistically
There is not enough known about crucifixions to say they all had deaths at X amount of time. Romans had a thousand ways to crucify someone.
Remember much of Pilate in the NT is thought to be fictitious according to scholars. It makes jesus seem more important if he is mentioned or tried, by the most important man in Israel at the time.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes that is what it states. In different books there are both physical and spiritual accounts of resurrection.
Different communities had different opinions about this.
Remember these people were not trying to read these books literally. We, due to our culture, do not read these books in the same context as they did.
While important, they didn't care about the contradictions from one account to the next, they were not supposed to be history as much as a sort of a pseudohistory within theology.
Rhetoric was used to persuade readers, it was just how they all were trained.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
There is no unified support in the above doc for the crucifixion.
Crosson is particularly diplomatic in the way that he declares his lack of certitude (evemn strong belief) about the crucifixion. He uses the 'I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.... ' approach. Then folks will grasp for whatever they wish to see, whilst the students and scholars will read more carefully into his words.
The crucifixion 'Prophesy or History?' is approached with :- There are, however, problems that indicate a deeper and more basic difficulty lying beneath the harmonious parallelism of the four-fold passion account...........'.
...... on p369 he writes '...... it is difficult not to admit that testimonia influenced certain parts of the NT'
Look at this....
on p372 C writes: 'I take it absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified.......' because Christians wouldn't make it up and because there were two independent witnesses to it.....
He then slowly approaches, on p373 ...... The problem is that Josephus' account is too good to be true..... ' The other witness was dated 110-120CE.
Clever wording to keep clear of unnecessary and time wasting world wide controversies, methinks..... thuis allowing scholars and students to study and discuss in as balanced an atmosphere as poss.
'I take it absolutely for granted..........' clever...... by who? The fact is that opinion about the crucifixion fluctuates from denial, through to possibility and on to balance of probability' among the scholars. They just need to keep their heads down to avoid the mob.
Both 'set-solid' sides of the question will grasp and argue, but the researchers will simply continue to attempt to research and discuss on a separate level entirely......... that of historical investigation.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes it does, (mean Son of the Father), and although the KJV bible omitted to include his first name, Jesus, this is included in the New Revised International Version, which seems to be respected by historians.
And so...... this supplies possibilities. There are many legends about Jesus, but let's take just one....... that he got clear to Gaul with Mary M and they had a daughter:-
Suppose Pilate wanted to hold and keep Jesus as some sort of lever against difficult Jewish leaders? He would have a 'ready leader' tucked away to produce whenever needed. And so he pardoned or reprieved Jesus, son of the Father and put him into his own 'protection-scheme' by sending him out to Gaul, with his love (wife?).
And maybe Jesus the bandit was the one who was crucified on the cross, for all to see........ for the excitement to wain.... but, of course, J's disciples had run, and only a few devoted women could watch from afar. Who knows who died? And the taking down and disappearance of the body....?
The fact that Jesus may have been allowed to go home to say goodbye to his elderly (if alive) mother and family could have offered an opportubnity for him to go to Capernaum and see his mates as well.
This is all in the mix. Nothing is carved in stone..... about J's death.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And please don't say "A wiki article, how convincing" If you doubt the authenticity of any parts of the article please feel free to click on the little numbers at the end of the sentence. There are numerous references to the crucifixion of Jesus outside of the Bible.
Now please provide some counter-arguments for the crucifixion not happening.
I don't necessarily agree with all of the scholar's assertations of Jesus' life, but I also realize they have spent the large majority of their life studying the life of Jesus, and you don't spend that much time studying one subject and not have some valuable information to add to the subject.
You definitely know more about this subject than me, I was just talking about Pilate making a reference to the short period of time Jesus spent on the cross.
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.
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?
Hmmm.... this I can see. But from what I've gathered, the scholarly census is that Pilate did order the execution of Jesus, although I would agree that he most likely would have not personally interviewed him as the Bible states, but why talk about the short length of time he spent on the cross. Also, what's your opinion on this article?
Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross – A Cardiologist
Hmmm... but what was the meaning of this specific type of rhetoric in your opinion. 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.
I'm not doubting the Bar Abbas info. I've actually heard it mentioned by another member on this forum. That Barbaras, the supposed criminal that was forgiven by the crowd, was actually the real Jesus. I've just never heard that Bar Abbas means "son of the father", and I was also asking what language that it means "son of the father". I would assume it would mean "son of the father" in Hebrew?
And in regard to Jesus' death, I find it highly plausible that Jesus survived the crucifixion. I actually think it was one of the major reasons that Christianity took off the way it did. In order to have followers as die hard as early Christians, I find it hard to believe that some crazy **** didn't go down. I actually think Jesus probably got his *** out of areas in Roman control, but would sneak back in here and there to demonstrate his "resurrection" to small groups of people in order to gain strength for his movement. The Joseph of Arimethea connections to the tin trade in Gaul/Briton are one of the strongest connections I've seen as of yet.
However, I don't think Pilate had a part in helping Jesus, save for maybe taking him down earlier than normal, as he looked like he was already dead. Although I don't think this was intentional, but it could of been. Roman's were definitely very superstitious.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well yes, many of them have already been referred to in this thread.
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.
So you keep claiming. The scholars with different opinions remain in existence and unchallenged.
Nope. Do you?
I am not denying the existence of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, just pointing out that it is scant. It is not a matter of historical certainty.
I have heard Christian apologists claim that there is more evidence for the ressurection than for any other event in the ancient world - but that is just another example of a little showmanship, it is not the truth either. Take Julies Ceaser for example, the evidence for his life and times would eclipse that for Jesus many times over.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Aramaic. Bar=son of and Abba=Father. Maybe Jesus Barabbas was an Aramaic speaking Galilean revolutionary. I understand that Josephus's use of the word 'bandit' = Revolutionary type.
I'm open minded about all of this.
A 5-6 hour crucifixion could have been survived, in fact Josephus appealed on behalf of three of his friends who had been convicted (forget what) and were being crucified. They were taken down and one of them survived.
Cool....... Maybe, just maybe the senior guard was bribed to report Jesus as dead and then Pilate instructed the taking down and the leg-breaking of the two others to end them quickly.
The possibilities are many.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
What references?
I mean, there are thousands of references to the crucifixion of Jesus every Sunday morning in the US, but I don't find modern preachers to add anything to the historical issue.
What credible references for the crucifixion do you know about?
Just a quick comment. This is based on the time line given in the Gospels. But there are conflicting timelines in the Gospels. And the timelines that are give are highly symbolic and full of religious allusions. For this reason I find those timelines highly suspect. The Romans would crucify someone until that person was dead, period. The Romans did not take people off the cross for a holiday.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
fantôme profane;3782454 said:
So you're picking and choosing what to believe, what not to believe. Great, but so can anyone else, it is just as likely that Jesus survived the cross, considering the narrative. I say more likely, unless you believe in the resurrection.
You are literally creating a whole scenario out of whole cloth, that's wonderful, but just realize that that is what you are doing, nothing else.
Of course I am picking and choosing what I believe. But I also gave two reasons for why I have made that choice. I do not believe that it is just as likely that Jesus survived crucifixion. There are no historical precedents for that. I am not going to apologize for applying reason.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Perhaps a reminder of what the 'problem' is, concerning so many HJ theorists.
a. assumption of crucifixion.
THERE ARE REASONS AS TO WHY, THEOLOGICALLY, 'CRUCIFIXION SCENARIO COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE NARRATIVE.
b. assumption of "cult" arising out of said crucifixion.
MUCH OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY DID NOT PLACE IMPORTANCE ON THE CRUCIFIXION, IT IS DIFFICULT EVEN TO TELL HOW THAT IMPORTANCE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE MAINSTREAM
c. "reasonable inference" indicates crucifixion.
GREAT, SO WHAT DOES RESURRECTION INDICATE, WHAT DOES LACK OF RECORDS OF SAID CRUCIFIXION INDICATE, WHAT DOES EARLY CHURCH BELIEF IN OTHER FORMS OF JESUS AND NON-CRUCIFIXION/OR RESURRECTION INDICATE.
d. assumption of what is 'truth' in scripture, as opposed to fiction.
HOW ARE YOU REACHING THESE "CONCLUSIONS", BY WHIM? BY FANCY? HOW ARE YOU CREATING A "BELIEVABLE NARRATIVE OUT OF TEXT YOU YOURSELF ARE DECLARING WILDLY FICTIONAL, WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOUR SPECULATIONS?
e. "authors of the NT".
IF, ACCORDING TO YOU, AUTHORSHIP OF THE NT IS HIGHLY DUBIOUS, WHY ARE WE TO BELIEVE THE GENERAL STORIES PRESENTED AT ALL?
a. assumption of crucifixion.
THERE ARE REASONS AS TO WHY, THEOLOGICALLY, 'CRUCIFIXION SCENARIO COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE NARRATIVE.
b. assumption of "cult" arising out of said crucifixion.
MUCH OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY DID NOT PLACE IMPORTANCE ON THE CRUCIFIXION, IT IS DIFFICULT EVEN TO TELL HOW THAT IMPORTANCE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE MAINSTREAM
c. "reasonable inference" indicates crucifixion.
GREAT, SO WHAT DOES RESURRECTION INDICATE, WHAT DOES LACK OF RECORDS OF SAID CRUCIFIXION INDICATE, WHAT DOES EARLY CHURCH BELIEF IN OTHER FORMS OF JESUS AND NON-CRUCIFIXION/OR RESURRECTION INDICATE.
d. assumption of what is 'truth' in scripture, as opposed to fiction.
HOW ARE YOU REACHING THESE "CONCLUSIONS", BY WHIM? BY FANCY? HOW ARE YOU CREATING A "BELIEVABLE NARRATIVE OUT OF TEXT YOU YOURSELF ARE DECLARING WILDLY FICTIONAL, WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOUR SPECULATIONS?
e. "authors of the NT".
IF, ACCORDING TO YOU, AUTHORSHIP OF THE NT IS HIGHLY DUBIOUS, WHY ARE WE TO BELIEVE THE GENERAL STORIES PRESENTED AT ALL?