Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[Desert Snake]

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

The narrative from the Passover forward.

That's the point, it's not just 'specific examples', it's the narrative in entirety.

 

[brokensymmetry]

The narrative from the Passover forward.

That's the point, it's not just 'specific examples', it's the narrative in entirety.

There is no way to respond to this. You find it 'sketchy' but won't say specifically how or give an instance that gives you pause. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

 

[kashmir]

The narrative from the Passover forward.

That's the point, it's not just 'specific examples', it's the narrative in entirety.

So all the highly respectable historians are wrong?
Have you actually studied the evidence they have studied?

There is no way to respond to this. You find it 'sketchy' but won't say specifically how or give an instance that gives you pause. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

He has yet to address anything I said.
Nor address the evidence that historians use.
Its all emotional pleas, just like all those who discredit historians.
dawkins, when put on the spot, then says "doesn't prove he was God"

Then goes right back to his empty claims, when talking to his followers "Jesus was made up"

that is too funny.

 

[steeltoes]

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?

Such is a bandwagon fallacy. Literary scholars are not historians, they analyze the texts and for example in the case of the gospels they exposed the synoptic problem. That's one example. They analyze the epistles in a way that discerns which ones were written by one author vs another, that is another example. Historical matters are left to historians.

 

[fantome profane]

Such is a bandwagon fallacy.

The question remains why to you no value in the peer reviewed historical scholarship in this case, but still see value in the peer reviewed historical scholarship in all other cases. It seems that is what you have said. Please tell me if I have misunderstood you.

If it is the bandwagon fallacy in this case, then peer reviewed scholarship must be the bandwagon fallacy in all cases. Otherwise it is special pleading as I have said. I am just asking if you are consistent in your evaluation of the value of peer reviewed historical scholarship?

 

[kashmir]

Such is a bandwagon fallacy.

only if you can discredit historians, can you?
Nobel peace prize is your reward.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no way to respond to this. You find it 'sketchy' but won't say specifically how or give an instance that gives you pause. What is anyone supposed to do with that?

Sure there is a way to respond to it, you can say "nope, all seems kosher to me"
..or..
"yeah, does seem a bit sketchy"
or..
Yes I think He went (such and such a place)..
etc. etc.
There are many ways to respond to the OP.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Sure there is a way to respond to it, you can say "nope, all seems kosher to me"
..or..
"yeah, does seem a bit sketchy"
or..
Yes I think He went (such and such a place)..
etc. etc.
There are many ways to respond to the OP.

That seems like an interesting discussion to you?

'that seems sketchy to me! can't say why, just doesn't feel right'
'not to me, seems right'
'alright, later'
'later'

 

[Desert Snake]

That seems like an interesting discussion to you?

'that seems sketchy to me! can't say why, just doesn't feel right'
'not to me, seems right'
'alright, later'
'later'

Um.. yeah? Not a problem with me.
That's a fake conversation anyway....:sarcastic

 

[steeltoes]

The question remains why to you no value in the peer reviewed historical scholarship in this case, but still see value in the peer reviewed historical scholarship in all other cases. It seems that is what you have said. Please tell me if I have misunderstood you.

If it is the bandwagon fallacy in this case, then peer reviewed scholarship must be the bandwagon fallacy in all cases. Otherwise it is special pleading as I have said. I am just asking if you are consistent in your evaluation of the value of peer reviewed historical scholarship?

You are confusing literary scholarship, in this case biblical scholarship, with historical scholarship. I don't know that too many historical scholars would touch Jesus historicity with a ten foot pole. Biblical scholars arguing for an historical Jesus gets downright silly, read Erhman's Did Jesus Exist for an example of outright silliness. It doesn't take an historian to expose circular reasoning. I think psychologists are best suited for exposing the minds of the believer.
Anyways, we are getting off topic.

 

[steeltoes]

only if you can discredit historians, can you?
Nobel peace prize is your reward.

What historians are you referring to? Do you have a clue or are you just repeating the stale old rhetoric that we have all heard before?

 

[columbus]

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 doubt that the crucifixion was at all metaphorical. I think Jesus was an anti-Roman revolutionary and when Pilate figured that out Jesus got the usual treatment. Jesus was painfully and publicly executed. Nothing metaphorical is needed to explain it.

Of course, His apostles wouldn't be likely to tell S/Paul about that, as it would likely get them the same treatment. So Paul created a new religion based on what he could find out. A mystical Jesus figure who never actually existed.

Doesn't seem hard to understand to me, if you know a little about sociopolitical landscape of first century Judea. Just read the Christian testament and substitute "Judea Libre" for "The Kingdom of God"

Tom

 

[kashmir]

What historians are you referring to? Do you have a clue or are you just repeating the stale old rhetoric that we have all heard before?

talk about hypocrisy.

the burden of proof is on you this time. :yes:
Just like with YEC's

again, good luck winning a noble peace prize, emotional pleas dont do it :yes:

 

[Desert Snake]

talk about hypocrisy.

the burden of proof is on you this time. :yes:
Just like with YEC's

again, good luck winning a noble peace prize, emotional pleas dont do it :yes:

So, what parts of the NT do you believe, and what parts do you think are fictionalized.

That....seems.....like an easy answer.. but think about it....

before answering..

 

[kashmir]

Um.. yeah? Not a problem with me.
That's a fake conversation anyway....:sarcastic

yep, those that claim Jesus never existed nor died on the cross, have nothing to show why other than "I don't care what historians say"

just like YEC's, "I don't care what biologists say"

same thing, historians have empirical evidence too and is being ignored by you.

you still have yet to address the evidence of a historian, no one has
"i dont care what they say" is fakery

 

[outhouse]

talk about hypocrisy.

the burden of proof is on you this time. :yes:
Just like with YEC's

again, good luck winning a noble peace prize, emotional pleas dont do it :yes:

Your right brother.

Here is the current state of historians. Again the ignorant do not understand scholars are historians.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

 

[Desert Snake]

yep, those that claim Jesus never existed nor died on the cross, have nothing to show why other than "I don't care what historians say"

just like YEC's, "I don't care what biologists say"

same thing, historians have empirical evidence too and is being ignored by you.

you still have yet to address the evidence of a historian, no one has "i dont care what they say" is fakery

Doesn't make sense. Actually it's irrelevant to the OP.

Did you even read and understand the OP?

 

[kashmir]

So, what parts of the NT do you believe, and what parts do you think are fictionalized.

That....seems.....like an easy answer.. but think about it....

before answering..

who is talking about the bible?
you have no clue what historians have for evidence, do you?

You think they use the bible?

 

[kashmir]

Doesn't make sense. Actually it's irrelevant to the OP.

Did you even read and understand the OP?

i think you wish to ignore what is being said because it doesn't line up with your metaphor issue.

Jesus died on the cross, its a proven fact, historians spend many years examining all the written text that we have today from what was written in histroy of the men who was there, and not the bible, get that out of your head, we have tons of other sources of men who were skeptics and said Jesus didnt rise from the dead, men who were there.
why would they write and say he did not rise from the dead, unless they knew he died on the cross?
They would have just written that he didnt even die on the cross,
Why are you refusing to address that?

You do not address that and talk in circles.

I am out :run:

 

[steeltoes]

i think you wish to ignore what is being said because it doesn't line up with your metaphor issue.

Jesus died on the cross, its a proven fact, historians spend many years examining all the written text that we have today from what was written in histroy of the men who was there, and not the bible, get that out of your head, we have tons of other sources of men who were skeptics and said Jesus didnt rise from the dead, men who were there.
why would they write and say he did nt rise from the dead, unless they knew he died on the cross?
Why are you refusing to address that?

You do not address that and talk in circles.

I am out :run:

Don't let the door hit you on the *** on your way out.