Is the "crcifixion" just a metaphor?

[kashmir]

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

good luck with proving historians wrong, your doing so well

this is my second best thread on this board.



At least YEC's bring real arguments to the table, they are flawed and wrong but its better than "ignore everything and just call it lies"

 

[steeltoes]

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.

From your link

Priceless:

"The positivistic side regards the Gospel accounts as accurate or at least relatively accurate reports, and the burden of proof is placed on those who would claim something attributed to Jesus was not historical (although the demand to “prove a negative” creates a logical fallacy: it is impossible, in most cases, to prove that Jesus did not say or do something the Gospels attribute to him)."



That gets a five out of 5 eye roll because regardless of the logical fallacy, the burden of proof lies on those that ask questions.

 

[kashmir]

That gets a five out of 5 eye roll because regardless of the logical fallacy, the burden of proof lies on those that ask questions.

I dont recall you asking questions, I recall you denying Jesus dying on the cross

 

[steeltoes]

I dont recall you asking questions, I recall you denying Jesus dying on the cross

Then you would be wrong.

 

[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

Historians don't have proof that the crucifixion actually occurred.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[fantome profane]

read Erhman's Did Jesus Exist for an example of outright silliness. It doesn't take an historian to expose circular reasoning.

I've read it. Got any examples you wish to share?

 

[steeltoes]

I've read it. Got any examples you wish to share?

Plenty, but not on this thread.

 

[fantome profane]

Plenty, but not on this thread.

ok, if you feel like sharing somewhere else let me know.

 

[Desert Snake]

Plenty, but not on this thread.

Thanks

No need to confuse the actual topic of discussion.

 

[outhouse]

From your link

Priceless:

"The positivistic side regards the Gospel accounts as accurate or at least relatively accurate reports, and the burden of proof is placed on those who would claim something attributed to Jesus was not historical (although the demand to “prove a negative” creates a logical fallacy: it is impossible, in most cases, to prove that Jesus did not say or do something the Gospels attribute to him)."



That gets a five out of 5 eye roll because regardless of the logical fallacy, the burden of proof lies on those that ask questions.

Well you dont quote mine cery well do you?


I like this much better.

We cannot always determine which came first: a historical event or a literary creation. In some cases, Jesus may have been influenced by the scriptures of Judaism (e.g., the miracle-working prophets such as Elijah and Elisha, the suffering servant described by the prophet Isaiah, the apocalyptic “son of man” mentioned by Daniel as well as 1 Enoch), as well as by Jewish accounts of martyrs, teachers, prophets, sages, and visionaries; yet it is equally possible that his followers, themselves steeped in these accounts, conformed their understanding of Jesus according to these narrative models. In other cases, those who told stories about him may have drawn from the rich traditions of the Greek and Roman worlds, from Homer to Aesop to Apollonius of Tyana and Apuleius of Madauros. In teaching and debating, Jesus would have used forms familiar to his audiences, such as parables and appeals to legal tradition or practice. Further, his audiences would have drawn upon this same repertoire in order to understand him.

 

[steeltoes]

Historians don't have proof that the crucifixion actually occurred.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

The crucifixion is a literary device, it's the climax of the story, Jesus is the Son of God, the ultimate scapegoat, a redeemer of mankind by dying for our sins, we are cleansed if we believe, and then there are those that take The Bible literally and read it as if Jesus is historical and that The Bible offers its own proof of historicity. Bible scholars are suddenly our historians and that alone proves that we are reading an historical account of actual events. Band wagon theory suggests that Jesus was really baptized and really crucified and somehow we are supposed to give a **** what these wannabe historians want us to believe.

 

[Quagmire]

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.

Mainly because there are a lot of frightened little boys and girls who think that if you even entertain the possibility of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, then you have to accept everything the Bible says about him as well as everything that Christians say about him, including the whole, "If you don't believe all this you're going to hell" bit.

Jesus is their personal bogey man, so they really can't afford for him to have existed in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Sabour]

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?

Friend, I hope you take time to watch this video


[youtube]Gfn5a2jXqFA[/youtube]
Q&A Al-Quran View Of JESUS Crucifixion - Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - YouTube

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Mainly because there are a lot of frightened little boys and girls who think that if you even entertain the possibility of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, then you have to accept everything the Bible says about him as well as everything that Christians say about him, including the whole, "If you don't believe all this you're going to hell" bit.

Jesus is their personal bogey man, so they really can't afford for him to have existed in any way, shape, or form.

Nope. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference in my worldview if he existed or not. That wouldn't make any claims made about him hold much water. Even if you strip away all the obvious mythical embellishments associated with him - turning water into wine, casting out "demons", the transfiguration, bringing dead people to life, himself coming back from the dead, etc. - what you're basically left with is an ascetic charismatic doomsday preacher who wasn't much different from cult leaders like Jim Jones, Charlie Manson or David Koresh (besides the murders, suicides and sexual abuse associated with those figures, the psychology of doomsday cult leaders is much the same and that includes the Jesus character).

I just doubt his existence because I haven't seen convincing evidence of it.

 

[kashmir]

Mainly because there are a lot of frightened little boys and girls who think that if you even entertain the possibility of an historical Jesus of Nazareth, then you have to accept everything the Bible says about him as well as everything that Christians say about him, including the whole, "If you don't believe all this you're going to hell" bit.

Jesus is their personal bogey man, so they really can't afford for him to have existed in any way, shape, or form.

Exactly.
"spams the frubals"
you deserve at least 10 for that post :yes:

 

[Desert Snake]

@One Answer,
Thanks for the interesting and informative link.

 

[Quagmire]

Nope. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference in my worldview if he existed or not. That wouldn't make any claims made about him hold much water. Even if you strip away all the obvious mythical embellishments associated with him - turning water into wine, casting out "demons", the transfiguration, bringing dead people to life, himself coming back from the dead, etc. - what you're basically left with is an ascetic charismatic doomsday preacher who wasn't much different from cult leaders like Jim Jones, Charlie Manson or David Koresh (besides the murders, suicides and sexual abuse associated with those figures, the psychology of doomsday cult leaders is much the same and that includes the Jesus character).

I just doubt his existence because I haven't seen convincing evidence of it.

Then what made you think I was talking about you?

 

[steeltoes]

Nope. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference in my worldview if he existed or not. That wouldn't make any claims made about him hold much water. Even if you strip away all the obvious mythical embellishments associated with him - turning water into wine, casting out "demons", the transfiguration, bringing dead people to life, himself coming back from the dead, etc. - what you're basically left with is an ascetic charismatic doomsday preacher who wasn't much different from cult leaders like Jim Jones, Charlie Manson or David Koresh (besides the murders, suicides and sexual abuse associated with those figures, the psychology of doomsday cult leaders is much the same and that includes the Jesus character).

I just doubt his existence because I haven't seen convincing evidence of it.

I agree. It makes no difference to me whether He existed or not, in fact I really just don't care, what I am fascinated by is the beliefs and the sureness of those that claim to be in the know.

 

[Quagmire]

I agree. It makes no difference to me whether He existed or not, in fact I really just don't care,

Which is why most of your posts are in threads debating whether Jesus existed or not. :yes:

(not to mention the ones you've personally derailed in that direction.)

 

[steeltoes]

"what I am fascinated by is the beliefs and the sureness of those that claim to be in the know."