Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[kashmir]

Even if he was a man who died on a cross, that would not make him a Messiah, or God, nor make any of the supposed miracles, true.




*

true that, so why do people even deny and some straight out lie on what history tells us about his actual existence?
That one, I am having trouble with.

 

[outhouse]

Yep, Jesus was an actual man who died on the cross, I don't know how people can still say it didn't happen.

Those who discount this, are usually the ones with the least amount of research or knowledge on the topics.

Discounting from ignorance is easy.

It is the exact same thing as apologetic belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yep, Jesus was an actual man who died on the cross, I don't know how people can still say it didn't happen.

You're missing the point of the OP. It isn't saying is Jesus a metaphor, it's suggesting is the crucifixion a metaphor....there's a big difference.

 

[outhouse]

true that, so why do people even deny and some straight out lie on what history tells us about his actual existence?
That one, I am having trouble with.

Because once we get beyond the historical facts which are bery few and limited, we have to deal with the rhetoric and mythology used in creating these legends.

Modern men have no real context of how ancient rhetoric was used and why, and since they used mythology it is easy to say they used ALL mythology.



Where they fail miserably is not one historian has provided a decent replacement hypothesis, and some smart cats have tried, all falied laughably

They also use the fact that scholars see different versions of jesus in their work, again due to the limited amount of credible knowledge we have. But fail to recognize none argue existance

 

[Ingledsva]

true that, so why do people even deny and some straight out lie on what history tells us about his actual existence?
That one, I am having trouble with.

As far as I know, none of the "written history" actually comes from the time of Jesus.



*

 

[kashmir]

You're missing the point of the OP. It isn't saying is Jesus a metaphor, it's suggesting is the crucifixion a metaphor....there's a big difference.

no, I am saying not only did he exist, he died on the cross, it is not a metaphor.
Historians have been studying all the evidence we have, all the text from all sources such as writings by skeptics back then who discredited Jesus's miracles and him actually rising from the dead, census's from the time period, writing of the high officials, and all sorts of stuff.

Skeptics back then would not have discussed his rising from the dead as being a hoax and his body was just stolen from the tomb, if he didn't exist or died on the cross in the first place.
They couldn't discredit it because it happened, they discredited him rising from the dead.

It would be like skeptics today claiming 9/11 didn't happen and was a hoax.
No, they discredit what the gov says and blame them for the towers falling.
We know the towers fell.

Back then, they knew Jesus died on the cross.

 

[Desert Snake]

Back then, they knew Jesus died on the cross.

And yet they didn't know He rose from the dead?....think about it..:sarcastic

 

[kashmir]

And yet they didn't know He rose from the dead?....think about it..:sarcastic

Those who seen him after the fact, knew, skeptics didn't believe it to be true.
Those skeptics knew he died, they seen it happen :yes:
That is what deems he actually did die on the cross.
the christian church exploding into existence, help make the whole events true.

 

[steeltoes]

Because once we get beyond the historical facts which are bery few and limited, we have to deal with the rhetoric and mythology used in creating these legends.

Modern men have no real context of how ancient rhetoric was used and why, and since they used mythology it is easy to say they used ALL mythology.



Where they fail miserably is not one historian has provided a decent replacement hypothesis, and some smart cats have tried, all falied laughably

They also use the fact that scholars see different versions of jesus in their work, again due to the limited amount of credible knowledge we have. But fail to recognize none argue existance

There are no historical facts as it concerns Jesus, there is only worthless speculation based on the interpretation of religious mythology that leads some to believe that there is such a thing as historical facts as it concerns Jesus.

 

[brokensymmetry]

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?

I don't think the disciples of JEsus would have made up their leader being executed as a criminal by the Romans. If he went off to India they would have gone with that instead. Being crucified would have been a very hard thing for them to explain, and I think actually all the stuff about the resurrection and trying to understand the crucifixion in the NT, all the different models for trying to understand it, underline this point. IT was difficult to explain, accept and understand. Whatever you can say about the life of Jesus, that his life ended in crucifixion seems likely.

That being said, it became 'metaphorical' after the fact as his disciples tried to rationalize what had happened to their leader.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think the disciples of JEsus would have made up their leader being executed as a criminal by the Romans. If he went off to India they would have gone with that instead.[

I think this is simplistic in view of the NT narrative. In my OP it brings up the 'sudden, convienent "ending' aspect of the narrative.

QUOTE] Being crucified would have been a very hard thing for them to explain, and I think actually all the stuff about the resurrection and trying to understand the crucifixion in the NT, all the different models for trying to understand it, underline this point. IT was difficult to explain, accept and understand.

Thiat is pure speculation, also what "different models""??

Whatever you can say about the life of Jesus, that his life ended in crucifixion seems likely.

Why? As likely as anything else? Do you believe the entire NT?

[/quote]

 

[brokensymmetry]

I think this is simplistic in view of the NT narrative. In my OP it brings up the 'sudden, convienent "ending' aspect of the narrative.

Thiat is pure speculation, also what "different models""??


Why? As likely as anything else? Do you believe the entire NT?

[/QUOTE]

This is not a convenient ending. This is a really bad and inconvenient ending that also happens to be historically appropriate. Romans would have wanted to execute a Jewish political agitator and it happening around the Passover makes sense.

As to the different theological explanatory models of how to interpret the crucifixion, that is not speculation. You can see that for yourself if you read the NT and see how different authors describe its theological import.

No I don't believe the entire NT. I do think Jesus existed and was crucified, but so does pretty much every scholar in the field of NT scholarship.

 

[kashmir]

No I don't believe the entire NT. I do think Jesus existed and was crucified, but so does pretty much every scholar in the field of NT scholarship.

this...

Its disturbing how some fundies poke fun at the horror Jesus went through too.
Crucifixion is not fun, I rather be burned alive.

 

[Desert Snake]

@brokensummetry

This is not a convenient ending. This is a really bad and inconvenient ending that also happens to be historically appropriate. Romans would have wanted to execute a Jewish political agitator and it happening around the Passover makes sense.

Re-read your comment here and think about it.

Then consider what Xianity came to mean, and the allegories used etc/

 

[fantome profane]

Biblical scholars are not historians, and when they pretend to be it gets downright silly.

How are you defining "historian"? What do historians do?

The majority of professional peer-reviewed historians agree that Jesus was a historical figure. If these are not historians, why not?

 

[brokensymmetry]

@brokensummetry


Re-read your comment here and think about it.

Then consider what Xianity came to mean, and the allegories used etc/

I have thought about this issue quite a bit. Christianity came to include the crucifixion as an important point because Jesus had been crucified and his early followers needed to understand that confusing and unexpected end to their leader.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have thought about this issue quite a bit. Christianity came to include the crucifixion as an important point because Jesus had been crucified and his early followers needed to understand that confusing and unexpected end to their leader.

But it's more than that. Look at the context, look at the characters....it looks sketchy to me, period. Perhaps it just all seems kosher to you, that's fine, but I'm very skeptical.

Also, I'm not buying that 'early followers' thing, I don't know what you're meaning by that.

 

[fantome profane]

I have thought about this issue quite a bit. Christianity came to include the crucifixion as an important point because Jesus had been crucified and his early followers needed to understand that confusing and unexpected end to their leader.

Yes, a historical event that came to be understood in mythological terms.

 

[kashmir]

How are you defining "historian"? What do historians do?

The majority of professional peer-reviewed historians agree that Jesus was a historical figure. If these are not historians, why not?

This mind boggles me.
What really puts the icing on the cake, is the ones who are most vocal about discrediting historians who actually use empirical evidence to come to their conclusions are the same ones who usually point fingers at YEC's for ignoring what science says.
They then become no different then YEC's
Ignore evidence when it doesn't fit their world view.

 

[brokensymmetry]

But it's more than that. Look at the context, look at the characters....it looks sketchy to me, period. Perhaps it just all seems kosher to you, that's fine, but I'm very skeptical.

What specifically am I looking at that you find sketchy? It's hard to respond when you don't give specific examples.