FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-21-2007, 07:58 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
I was putting forward a slightly different issue. You imply that those who (initially) put the crucifixion interpretation on the texts under consideration were christian. I don't know if one can support that. Could Jewish messianists not have done the imposing?
I am not aware of any evidence for such a pre-Christian interpretation. Are you?

I'm also not sure how to differentiate between "Jewish messianists" and the first Christians.

I would say that whomever first proposed this interpretation of the text already believed in a crucified messiah and did not derive it from the text.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 08-21-2007, 08:05 AM   #12
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cege View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Paul's writings were the first to appear, and he seems to know very little of the crucifixion. What he says fills just one line. 'Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.'' That is all Paul seems to know. The words ''in accordance with the scriptures'' alludes to the old testament passages that have nothing to do with Jesus, but are words from their ancient prophets to there own time, but people like Paul were searching their scriptures for an understanding of this son of God who was crucified aproxx. 30 years before he put pen to paper. The N/T was given birth by the O/T.
Paul's writings refer to the crucifixion by mention of the "cross" several times, as in 1 Cor 1:
17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.


It's impossible to know from Paul's epistles how much detail he knew about Jesus' crucifixion on a cross, but it's apparent that he believed that Jesus died on a cross and the act was a message from God.
If Paul appears to know about or believe the crucifixion happened, then he must also appear to know about or believe the resurrection happened, since there are passages in the Epistles about the resurrection.

Romans 1.4, 'And declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead'.

1 Corinth.15.12, " Now if Christ be preached he that rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

So, we see that the authors of the Epistles have the propensity to make references to events that are most likely false, the resurrection. Bearing this in mind, the veracity of the crucifixion story is now questionable.
Did ePaul get his resurrection and crucifixion stories from the same source?

Both the resurrection and the crucifixion cannot be true, ePaul appears to believe both are true. ePaul appears not to be able to tell the difference between belief and actuality.

The Epistles cannot establish the crucifixion of Jesus.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-21-2007, 08:23 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
Both the resurrection and the crucifixion cannot be true, ePaul appears to believe both are true. ePaul appears not to be able to tell the difference between belief and actuality.

The Epistles cannot establish the crucifixion of Jesus.
My assertion is only that Paul wrote that he believed Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and then appeared to Paul in a vision/s of some sort. Those vision/s are what convinced Paul that Jesus died, rose from the dead, etc. Paul had not previously been convinced by similar stories and information that he heard from others about a certain Jesus being the resurrected messiah of the Jews.

Paul does not claim to have been present to witness Jesus crucified, etc He does claim to have received all his information about Jesus directly from "Jesus" years after Jesus was resurrected.

I agree that the epistles cannot historically establish the crucifixion of the Jesus described in the gospels. The gospels can't either. Both categories of writings, whoever the authors were, merely make assertions anc claims.
Cege is offline  
Old 08-21-2007, 08:30 AM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cege View Post
Quote:
Both the resurrection and the crucifixion cannot be true, ePaul appears to believe both are true. ePaul appears not to be able to tell the difference between belief and actuality.

The Epistles cannot establish the crucifixion of Jesus.
My assertion is only that Paul wrote that he believed Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and then appeared to Paul in a vision/s of some sort. Those vision/s are what convinced Paul that Jesus died, rose from the dead, etc. Paul had not previously been convinced by similar stories and information that he heard from others about a certain Jesus being the resurrected messiah of the Jews.

Paul does not claim to have been present to witness Jesus crucified, etc He does claim to have received all his information about Jesus directly from "Jesus" years after Jesus was resurrected.

I agree that the epistles cannot historically establish the crucifixion of the Jesus described in the gospels. The gospels can't either. Both categories of writings, whoever the authors were, merely make assertions anc claims.

Well, your agreement is reasonable. It cannot be established that Jesus was crucified.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-22-2007, 04:26 PM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Cosmas Indicopleustes was an Alexandrian, and his thinking fits into the classical world.
This digression has definitely gone on long enough, ..........
I checked all your replies and I have noticed there is nothing pertaiing to the OP. What is your position on the alledged crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-22-2007, 04:39 PM   #16
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II View Post

This digression has definitely gone on long enough, ..........
I checked all your replies and I have noticed there is nothing pertaiing to the OP.
Yes, that's the nature of a digression. That's why I agreed that any further discussion of the topic of the "flat earth" myth should be on a new thread. If you'd like to continue the discussion you could start such a thread or perhaps ask a mod to split the posts on the digression from this one.

Quote:
What is your position on the alledged crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate?
I'd say it's one of the things we can say is historical about Yeshua with a good degree of confidence. As Amaleq13 argues earlier in this thread, it's too much of an awkward and embarrassing thing for it to be likely to be an invention. The "scriptures" which were used to "show" that it was a fullfillment of prophecy about the Messiah are strained and contrived (ask any Jew), and are an indication that Yeshua's followers had some difficulty reconciling this unexpected and awkward turn of events with who and what they thought Yeshua was.
Antipope Innocent II is offline  
Old 08-22-2007, 09:26 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

I checked all your replies and I have noticed there is nothing pertaiing to the OP.
Yes, that's the nature of a digression. That's why I agreed that any further discussion of the topic of the "flat earth" myth should be on a new thread. If you'd like to continue the discussion you could start such a thread or perhaps ask a mod to split the posts on the digression from this one.

Quote:
What is your position on the alledged crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate?
I'd say it's one of the things we can say is historical about Yeshua with a good degree of confidence. As Amaleq13 argues earlier in this thread, it's too much of an awkward and embarrassing thing for it to be likely to be an invention. The "scriptures" which were used to "show" that it was a fullfillment of prophecy about the Messiah are strained and contrived (ask any Jew), and are an indication that Yeshua's followers had some difficulty reconciling this unexpected and awkward turn of events with who and what they thought Yeshua was.
To base your position on awkwardness and embarrassment is a bit weak. I was expecting a little more. And his method of conception appears to be far more awkward and embarassing. Don't you think?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-22-2007, 09:50 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
To base your position on awkwardness and embarrassment is a bit weak.
So weak that you are unable to offer any credible alternative? That rings quite hollow, amigo.

It is not derived from Hebrew Scripture and is contrary to a desire to obtain converts. Got anything else?

Quote:
And his method of conception appears to be far more awkward and embarassing. Don't you think?
What would be awkward or embarrassing to a 1st century Christian about a magical conception by the Holy Spirit?
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 08-23-2007, 08:58 AM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 167
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
To base your position on awkwardness and embarrassment is a bit weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
It is not derived from Hebrew Scripture and is contrary to a desire to obtain converts. Got anything else?
While a crucifixion might be "contrary to a desire to obtain converts" if witnessed at the time it occurred, it would not be if viewed as a somewhat recent historical event, or indeed from a distance of 2,000 years. I think the argument re embarrassment is in no way persuasive of an historical crucifixion. It is the dramatic core that leads to the resurrection. The cross is the symbol of the religion and you want to make it seem ineffective? Interesting argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
What would be awkward or embarrassing to a 1st century Christian about a magical conception by the Holy Spirit?
I'm sure nothing, as they seemingly have no problem accepting John the Baptist's magical conception, which seems no different than Jesus' and no more likely.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=49&version=31

Luke 1

Quote:
7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren; and they were both well along in years.

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense.
12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear.
13 But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John.
14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth,
15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth
16 Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God.
17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
18 Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years."
19 The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.
driver8 is offline  
Old 08-23-2007, 09:38 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by driver8 View Post
While a crucifixion might be "contrary to a desire to obtain converts" if witnessed at the time it occurred, it would not be if viewed as a somewhat recent historical event, or indeed from a distance of 2,000 years.
No, Paul makes it very clear that "the cross" was a "stumbling block" to folks (specifically Jews) who had only heard about the crucifixion of Jesus from others. I think you need to do some reading on how that form of execution and its victims were viewed in ancient times. The bare claim, alone, carried a great deal of assumed baggage that was entirely negative. I recommend Martin Hengel's Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Quote:
The cross is the symbol of the religion and you want to make it seem ineffective?
Paul makes it very clear that it didn't help his cause when he tells us it was a "stumbling block" to conversion.

Your objection seems to me to be based entirely on inadequate information on the subject including what Paul has to say about it.
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:30 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.