Jesus and the Crucifixion - Continued from Another Thread.

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Regardless of what I or anyone else believes -- nevertheless the gospels say what the gospels say @badger
It's for folks to decide what they believe. I like the gospels..... I wouldn't have spent so much time studying them otherwise, and yes, they do say what they say........ but even a perjured statement says what it says, so we have to be careful about any statements.

Paul says, he spent 15 days with Peter and also met James. That's what he says
Yes..... Paul did meet Cephas and James..... but he never wrote a single word about what Jesus did during that mission, didn't write a gospel.
Paul built congregations and beliefs up, I think.

It's possible to have Jesus taken away in a flying saucer, or to be on magic mushrooms -- or almost any theory

It's a circle from now on ...
No...... not for me it isn't..... my journey in studying the gospels and early first century Palestine continues onwards. If it's a closed circle for you then I accept what you say about that, but a living thing does moves forwards.
Example:- A paragraph of @Cino 's caused me to reconstruct yesterday's 'Rebels' page. If a thing is living then it's learning and moving.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I don't believe a boy called Harry Potter really played quidditch at Hogwarts -- but there's no way I can manipulate and cherry-pick the Harry Potter books to confirm that he did not. They say what they say, lol
I've never read any of them........ Only ever watched part of the first film.
But I like fiction and we watch all kinds of series that are not factual....it;s fun, and nothing to do with the gospels.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
It doesn't follow that Jesus had told people that he died on the cross because that is what the majority believed.
Nobody would blame people for thinking that .. but the rest of the beliefs of "who he is" because of it is another matter.
This all came about in the Gentile community, and not the original Jewish following, imo.
Bingo........ I think that Cephas and others were very offended by the 'New Gentile Religion' that was springing up from what had been the real campaign.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
it's a closed circle for you then I accept what you say
I did not say it's a closed loop. I said a person can get any weird theory out of the gospels that they want to, if they disregard the parts that do not suit. Historians try to reconstruct a historical Jesus by comparing original manuscripts and so on, and often their opinions differ.

They do not go into the New Testament with a pre-set agenda to prove Jesus did not die on the cross, in order to back-up their own theory. I'm not saying that you @badger are doing that. But there are a lot of folks out there who do.

The above passage from Luke is often used to 'prove' that Jesus did not die on the cross, when in fact it says the opposite. Any honest interpretation must include the next verses where Christ explains quite clearly that he is not revived but resurrected.

It's not honest to exclude that part, as many do -- and then when it is pointed out to them, they have to try to explain it away as corrupted or interpolated or whatever. Again, not you. I hope.

It's not reasonable to use one verse from a gospel to support a theory, and reject the next verse that does not support it, without proper historical study, imo

@muhammad_isa
I am not trying to include you with these dishonest apologists. I quite understand your view that the gospel writers genuinely (but wrongly) believed what they wrote.

(edited ...)
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Messages
703
Reaction score
534
Points
88
Location
United States
I did not say it's a closed loop. I said a person can get any weird theory out of the gospels that they want to, if they disregard the parts that do not suit. Historians try to reconstruct a historical Jesus by comparing original manuscripts and so on, and often their opinions differ.

They do not go into the New Testament with a pre-set agenda to prove Jesus did not die on the cross, in order to back-up their own theory. I'm not saying that you @badger are doing that. But there are a lot of folks out there who do.

A particular mythicist by the name of Richard Carrier comes to mind here. I think there are some quite outlandish theories in mythicism. I can see why they are seen as an embarrassing fringe by most serious scholarship.
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I did not say it's a closed loop. I said a person can get any weird theory out of the gospels that they want to, if they disregard the parts that do not suit. Historians try to reconstruct a historical Jesus by comparing original manuscripts and so on, and often their opinions differ.
Oh!....... how true that is..... that weird stories have sprung from the gospels, But of course historian's opinions differ, just as Church Creeds do. I have read historian's books about HJ but I don't quote these unless they are/were translators or specialists in general history........ the only real eveidence for Jesus comes from the gospels and a very few other sources, some Christian, others being enemies of Christianity.

They do not go into the New Testament with a pre-set agenda to prove Jesus did not die on the cross, in order to back-up their own theory. I'm not saying that you @badger are doing that. But there are a lot of folks out there who do.
I don't follow an agenda, nor do all historians. But folks who quote historians and professors to prove something about Jesus, and those who demand to be shown a professor who agrees with some point, these people... I say to them, 'Let these professors come here where we discuss the history of Jesus. Let them put their opinions to us.'
But they won't........ or haven't.

The above passage from Luke is often used to 'prove' that Jesus did not die on the cross, when in fact it says the opposite. Any honest interpretation must include the next verses where Christ explains quite clearly that he is not revived but resurrected.
I could not see the passage you referred to. At least, nothing on this page. But Luke never met Jesus nor saw any deed that Jesus did. On the other hand Luke can throw bright historical light in some areas.... his mention of how Jews who tried to celebrate feast outside the Temple, probably at the loss of incoming funds, found bloody death.... his details are valuable.

It's not honest to exclude that part, as many do -- and then when it is pointed out to them, they have to try to explain it away as corrupted or interpolated or whatever. Again, not you. I hope.
You would need to tell them this when they discuss with you.

It's not reasonable to use one verse from a gospel to support a theory, and reject the next verse that does not support it, without proper historical study, imo
Then it would be best to study.
Even some words in verses have 'appeared' later on. An easy example is in the very first verse of the very first chapter of G-Mark.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
A particular mythicist by the name of Richard Carrier comes to mind here. I think there are some quite outlandish theories in mythicism. I can see why they are seen as an embarrassing fringe by most serious scholarship.
Ha ha! Carrier....... he's quite clever, of course; one way of really getting ahead is to spin an idea for fanatics to follow, and 'bingo'....an expert is borne.

I do enjoy conversing with mythers...... some even claim that the entire bible is myth, every sentence, even! Oh the joy of conversing with them.... their explanations of how that enormous foundation got stuck inside the walls of Jerusalem, etc..... And the NT mythers can start off with some geography, an easy primer to get them moving. :D

But then, some of the ones who claim that Jesus was real but just human, these can be fun as well. Crosson's shuffling peasant offering magic-for-meal in a land completely deluged in Roman Patronage is great fun....... there may have been Roman observers in Galilee and certainly there were Roman holidaymakers, even retired Romans.......... but there were no Roman forces pr authorities in Galilee, the idea that Antipas would have let Roman Forces prance around in his provinces is just.....weird. Pilate and Antipas were very much at odds, methinks.

One historian that I really clicked on was the one-time Priest Vermes, a translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls etc, who wrote about the Historic Jesus.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
could not see the passage you referred to. At least, nothing on this page. But Luke never met Jesus nor saw any deed that Jesus did. On the other hand Luke can throw bright historical light in some areas.... his mention of how Jews who tried to celebrate feast outside the Temple, probably at the loss of incoming funds, found bloody death.... his details are valuable.
Sorry, I mean 'above' in the thread. Point is while denying the Luke has has any credibility on the subject, you are using half of it to support the theory Jesus did not die, while ignoring the very next part of the same passage where Jesus clearly explains that he is not revived but risen from the dead?
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

Luke 24:31-49 read whole chapter
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Sorry, I mean 'above' in the thread. Point is while denying the Luke has has any credibility on the subject, you are using half of it to support the theory Jesus did not die, while ignoring the very next part of the same,passage where Jesus clearly explains that he is not revived but risen from the dead?
1. I do not deny that Luke has any credibility because I am using much of it. However, I do absolutely ignore the theory that he is God, was resurrected, etc.

Let's have a close look at that quoted passage:-
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.
I think that is a very realistic paragraph, and that Jesus did actually have nail wounds in hands and feet, and I discount suggestions that these wounds were in his wrists. The nails in Hands were to hold them in place so that a convict could not struggle out of the lashings. And the request for food and drink.... an obviously accurate report, exactly what a hungry/thirsty mortal would need.

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Excellent....... 'Everything must be fulfilled that is written ....in the law of Moses! I certainly expect that devout followers popped in the 'about me', just as they did in the first verse of G-Mark...'Son of God'. A good investigator investigates, and it's sad that Christians have completely ignored 'the Laws of Moses' apart from ones that fuel their wishes.

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Ah ha! Really.... please quote exactly where 'The Scriptures' show any such thing, and these passages need to exist in the Jewish scriptures, The scriptures that Jesus would have referred to. And all else you have to do is to quote a passage of Jesus where he says any such things during his campaign, and if you do I'll be pleased to show passages where Jesus tells exactly the opposite. Jesus was campaigning for justice and provision as written down in the laws of Moses for all Jews. And that was what was needed back then, two thousand years ago.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Jesus was campaigning for justice and provision as written down in the laws of Moses for all Jews. And that was what was needed back then, two thousand years ago.
That is in your own opinion, of course?

There are lots of conversations about Jesus's intentions and about his relation to OT prophecies, whether Moses actually existed, etc.

By your own estimation the top part is solid, and the bottom half twaddle? In spite of the fact the whole purpose of the passage being there at all is Christ's demonstration of his resurrection, not of his revival.

So there are two sides to the story, is what I'm saying.

There have been many failed rebellions that did not go on to become one of the most prevalent movements and philosophies the world has ever known, lasting two thousand years? It can all be laid to error and human blindness -- Roman influence, and so on?

There is another possibility of course ...
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
I certainly expect that devout followers popped in the 'about me', just as they did in the first verse of G-Mark...'Son of God'
It's easy to reject whatever does not fit a particular theory about Jesus as interpolation or whatever. What makes this particular 'Jesus did not die on the cross theory' more valid than the flying saucer theory -- that it allows redaction of the parts that don't fit?

There are also many historians who believe Jesus did die on the cross.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
That is in your own opinion, of course?

There are lots of conversations about Jesus's intentions and about his relation to OT prophecies, whether Moses actually existed, etc.
My own opinions? I just quote what Jesus spoke out:-
Matthew {5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

By your own estimation the top part is solid, and the bottom half twaddle? In spite of the fact the whole purpose of the passage being there at all is Christ's demonstration of his resurrection, not of his revival.
I don't use words like 'solid' nor 'twaddle', I just write what I write. And one point that I did make was that Christianity added to and manipulated accounts, not only in the gospels but in accounts such as that of Josephus.

So there are two sides to the story, is what I'm saying.
There are thousands of sides to the story, both within and without of Christianity.

There have been many failed rebellions that did not go on to become one of the most prevalent movements and philosophies the world has ever known, lasting two thousand years? It can all be laid to error and human blindness -- Roman influence, and so on?

There is another possibility of course ...
I don't think that it did go on for two thousand years, RJM. It changed as it grew, adopting other beliefs and reversing in to other cultures, adapting as necessary. Church Leaders would make claims to help various situations, and then later Church Leaders would reverse and revoke those claims. Where I live many many church grounds were pagan meeting places and priests came to these to proselytise, even reversing in to ancient holy places, and collecting ancient feasts only under new names. The mission that Jesus led...... I think it survived, but only amongst a very few followers.

Claiming that Christianity has survived 'unchanged' doesn't impress me.... the most successful following of Jesus around here (that I know of) is the Jehovah's Witness movement.... maybe 100 years in age.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
It's easy to reject whatever does not fit a particular theory about Jesus as interpolation or whatever. What makes this particular 'Jesus did not die on the cross theory' more valid than the flying saucer theory -- that it allows redaction of the parts that don't fit?
The redaction is all about passages that appeared after the earliest known copies. Or Passages that are clearly incorrect. Or claims that do not fit. That has to look dodgy, imo. And that last sentence is my opnion.

You mention 'Jesus did not die' and 'flying saucer...theories. No...... those are claims, opinions, ideas, beliefs and stories, just as Christians have these. For example, I know Christians that almost certainly don't believe what you do........ you surely know that to be true.

I have noticed how you refer to 'flying saucers', or 'cherry picking' or 'Harry Potter' as a form of successful discussion. Do you find that these rhetorical instruments actually help to prove that Jesus is God? I don't bother with analogies if I can avoid them because for me they have always failed, or been hopelessly inaccurate.

There are also many historians who believe Jesus did die on the cross.
Yes, there are.
Does this help your own faith in some way?
It doesn't act against my opinions, though.
I simply acknowledge their faith.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
My own opinions? I just quote what Jesus spoke out:-
Matthew {5:17} Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {5:18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I believe he meant the true divine law -- the Spirit of the law. But while we are just quoting what Jesus spoke out:
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Luke 24:31-49 read whole chapter
That's also Jesus speaking out. It's also written in the gospel? It's the very kernel of the passage -- but it doesn't fit the theory
Claiming that Christianity has survived 'unchanged' doesn't impress me.... the
No-one claims that
Does this help your own faith in some way?
It doesn't act against my opinions, though.
I simply acknowledge their faith.
There are many non-Christuan historians who do not agree with your theory that Jesus did not die on the cross. When your theory is questioned you seem to fall back on basically demeaning 'my' faith

This just goes around in a circle from now on. Paul met Peter and James. They were the closest followers. They obviously discussed the crucifixion.

I'm at work. I will read your responses more carefully later, and respond if they bring up anything new about the growth of Christianity etc, but at a glance they don't seem to. There are countless threads about it here
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Just to repeat points that may have been forgotten:

-- Pilate had Jesus scourged in an effort to avoid having to crucify him. It wasn't standard procedure. It was a severe ordeal. This punishment in itself would greatly weaken Jesus, could perhaps in itself cause death to a weak person. Jesus was beaten about the head and exhausted by carrying the cross (bar) and obviously in a very bad way before being nailed to the cross. The short crucifixion could easily be caused by these factors.

-- There is no justification to suppose Jesus was not nailed through the wrists and crucified in exactly the same way as were the criminals on either side of him.

-- There is no justification to conclude that piercing Jesus with a dirty spear while still hanging on the cross was done to release fluid from his lungs, when the operation could be performed medically as soon as Jesus was down off the cross. So why do it?

-- There is no reason to conclude that Mary and the onlookers were too far away to see what was going on.

-- It's extremely unlikely Peter and James and other closest followers would not find out about the rescue. They are later said to have met with Jesus after the crucifixion, and extremely unlikely they misunderstood whatever Jesus said to them, and then went on to repeat to Paul the same inaccuracies.

Hopefully no need to repeat them again?
There are other factors too

It's a weak theory, imo
So unless there's s anything new ...
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
676
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
There are many non-Christuan historians who do not agree with your theory that Jesus did not die in the cross. When your theory is questioned you seem to fall back on basically demeaning 'my' faith
A physical resurrection was unnecessary for the visionary mode of seeing the risen Christ, but when the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John were being written, the emphasis had shifted to the physical nature of the resurrection, while still overlapping with the earlier concept of a divine exaltation of Jesus' soul. This development can be linked to the changing make-up of the Christian community: Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were Jewish, and Second Temple Judaism emphasized the life of the soul; the gospel-writers, in an overwhelmingly Greco-Roman church, stressed instead the pagan belief in the hero who is immortalized and deified in his physical body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus

..so which is it?
Is it a physical or spiritual resurrection?
Why was the tomb empty?

Many unanswered questions, with Christians believing different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
so which is it?
Is it a physical or spiritual resurrection?
Why was the tomb empty?
Resurrection in both Christian and Muslim understanding (and I think in Judaism too) is resurrection of the (perfected) body. As we are all supposed to be resurrected in the final judgement. It's what the word means, imo?
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Messages
703
Reaction score
534
Points
88
Location
United States
But then, some of the ones who claim that Jesus was real but just human, these can be fun as well.

I do think that Jesus was probably a real person and "just human." I'm not so sure about magic-for-meal theories. I just think we have decent enough evidence to show that Jesus probably existed but nowhere near the evidence we would need to show that he was something more than human or in touch with some sort of divinity.

As far as I'm concerned, the details about how that actually works is the subject of wild speculation that I try not to participate in. I don't think we know enough about Jesus's actual life and I'm skeptical that the gospels can provide us with any details on that matter given how much they contradict one another.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I believe he meant the true divine law -- the Spirit of the law. But while we are just quoting what Jesus spoke out:
That's also Jesus speaking out.
No...it was Jesus quoting from a scripture. Can you show that original scripture, and then we could review that?

I see that you are at work. Let's continue when you are free.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I do think that Jesus was probably a real person and "just human." I'm not so sure about magic-for-meal theories. I just think we have decent enough evidence to show that Jesus probably existed but nowhere near the evidence we would need to show that he was something more than human or in touch with some sort of divinity.

As far as I'm concerned, the details about how that actually works is the subject of wild speculation that I try not to participate in. I don't think we know enough about Jesus's actual life and I'm skeptical that the gospels can provide us with any details on that matter given how much they contradict one another.
Yes, and I agree with you, that Jesus was real and human.
I have taken info from all the gospels but that doesn't mean that I accept every word from them.

Can I ask..... What do you think the real Jesus account really is?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
...it was Jesus quoting from a scripture. Can you show that original scripture, and then we could review that?
It is Jesus saying he is come in fulfillment of the scriptures. There are mounds of writings about the scriptures in question.

There is the Isiaah 'suffering messiah' and Psalm 22. Regardless if they are disputed or not. People dedicate lifetimes looking for OT references to Jesus. Jesus mentions the sign of Jonah. Your argument doesn't fly, imo
 
Last edited:

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Messages
703
Reaction score
534
Points
88
Location
United States
Yes, and I agree with you, that Jesus was real and human.
I have taken info from all the gospels but that doesn't mean that I accept every word from them.

Can I ask..... What do you think the real Jesus account really is?

I accept the "minimal facts Jesus;" that he was a Jewish messiah claimant who was executed. I think anything beyond that might be unknowable. We have no idea how many of the teachings attributed to him actually came from him, for instance. All we can do is speculate.

I think there is value in this speculation. I think that, as the debate continues, the surviving ideas about who Jesus was become more and more rigorous. Eventually, we might have a decent enough guess as to who he was and that will probably become the expert consensus. As it stands, it does not seem like there is any such consensus yet and so I withhold my judgment on any of the competing arguments.
 
Last edited:
Top