ChristMyth

I was reading Romans today while waiting in a doctors office (nothing else to read and it was going to be a very long wait) and I got to the part where Paul is talking about the crucifixion of Christ. Then a question hit me: What if Paul isn't talking about a real crucifixion? What if the crucifixion is just metaphor?

What I mean is this. Let's say that Jesus is walking the hills of Judea and needs a symbol to illustrate something he's trying to teach. Crucifixion is common in those days. Everybody knows what it means to be crucified. "Sure," Jesus thinks, "the kingdom of God is like being crucified, only your crucifying the old you and a new you will emerge from the cross. A resurrection as it were."

His followers think to themselves, "Yeah, I get it. Jesus is the first to crucify himself and the first to resurrect himself in this new you. Sounds like something I can get behind." So these followers start telling his story, meanwhile the real Jesus floats off into the sunset, his teachings to live on while he grows old and gray and dies somewhere.

Paul hears this and, while at first thinks these people are a bunch of kooks that needs a good thrashing so they won't infest the temple with such nonsense, begins to see the use and meaning behind this idea. He picks up the mantle and carries it on, not realizing that the real Jesus is still very much alive somewhere, probably sipping on some kool-aid and enjoying the sun.

By the time the gospels writers hear this story, Jesus really was crucified (according to the story anyway), resurrected from the dead, and sitting at the right hand of the Father. Throw in a virgin birth and a few miracles along the way and you got yourself a bonafide religion.

Is this possible?

(added note: please don't turn this into a JM debate. Let's assume for the stories sake that a Jesus really existed, just for a moment)

QuestionMark

My vote is for Crucifiction!

QM?

aa5874

If it is assumed Jesus existed, then it can be assumed Paul was talking about a real crucifixion.

And if it is assumed Jesus did not exist, then a methaphorical or fictional crucifixion may be assumed.

ChristMyth

Why? Why couldn't it be just a metaphor? Why does Jesus really have to be crucified?

Toto

It could be a metaphor. There was a common saying at the time - to take up one's cross.

But what problem does this solve? What does it illuminate?

Doug Shaver

I don't believe anybody is saying it was necessary. All anyone is saying is that it's probably what happened to the historical Jesus if there was one.

Assuming there was such a man, then the most parsimonious explanation for Paul's believing that he was crucified is that he really was crucified, unless there is some additional evidence to contrary.

ChristMyth

IMO, it seems that there are two major ideas about the crucifixion:

1. Jesus existed and was crucified
2. Jesus never existed and was never crucified

I'm simply quesitioning the idea that a crucifixion took place even if a historical Jesus existed. Why should we just assume that Jesus was crucified as described?

If the crucifixion was just another story told by Jesus to his followers to illustrate a point, which wouldn't be out of character, doesn't this change the story being told as a whole?

In the end, I'm just trying a different perspective to see your thoughts?

Christmyth

ChristMyth

But this is exactly what I'm questioning. If the crucifixion was just an illustration, and Paul new it to be an illustration that may have gone back to a real Jesus, would he not have used it in the same manner?

In this scenerio, how could we really know what Paul knew and didn't know?

Toto

The problem is, what do we mean by the historical Jesus? How close does a historical figure have to be to the figure described in the gospels before he qualifies as the historical Jesus?

Otherwise it's too easy. Someone was the first Christian, and you can just annoint that person as "the historical Jesus", even if it was a bored housewife telling stories to her inlaws.

So the general idea is that to qualify as "the historical Jesus" the person had to have inspired the formation of Christianity (even if that was not his intent) and to have been crucified.

There were evidently a lot of wandering cynic-type preachers wandering around the area preaching moral precepts that resemble what the gospels report that Jesus said. Even Doherty believes that there was some sort of preacher like that. But if this person was not crucified, he is just a little too remote from the concept of "historical Jesus."

And if the person Paul refers to was not crucified, it's not clear what other characteristics he possesses. You might as well be talking about a spiritual entity.

Reliable Skeptic

Weather it did or did not happen is not really the question. Christianities very faith rest on the crucifixion and resurrection if it were to be proved false then Christianity would become a lie.