Yellum Notnef

What if Jesus was killed by being thrown into a volcano?

aa5874

Even internally, from the Gospels' source, the crucifixion had no significance to the disciples. They had no idea or understanding although Jesus told them of the events.

Mark 9.31-32, "For he taught his disciples and said unto them, The son of man is delievered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed , He shall rise the third day".

"But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him".

So, based on the NT, Jesus is regarded as a capital criminal whose followers do not understand the significance of his death.

Toto

aa5874, this is becoming a bit repetitious.

The crucifixion scene in the gospels was intended to represent someone undergoing the worst form of punishment, then dying, but conquering death and despair by returning to life after a few days. There is no reason to assume that Jesus survived the crucifixion based on this story, which is just a story in any case.

Jesus is not regarded as a capital criminal, but as someone unjustly accused of a crime. There were many religious and national Jewish heroes who had been crucified in recent history when this was written. The crucifixion may make reference to one of them, or symbolically to the treatment of the entire Jewish nation by the Romans.

The disciples didn't understand much of anything in Mark. This appears to be a plot device. It doesn't mean that the crucifixion had "no significance" to the disciples. It appears to have had a lot of significance after it happened.

aa5874

You cannot direct me to assume your assumptions. What is your source to claim that Jesus of the NT, if he did live, did not survive the crucifixion?
The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Corinthians, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Origen and others all claimed Jesus was alive after the crucifixion.

In the NT, the dead body of Jesus was never seen in the tomb, when visited, but he was seen eating fish and bread with his disciples, afterwards.

Blasphemy was puhishable by death, that is a capital crime. (KJV)Mark 14.61-64, ".....Again the high priest asked Him....Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, 'I am"........
Then the high priest rent his clothes, and said, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?
And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

According to "Tractate Sanhedrin:IV, a blasphemer and those who defiled the Sabbath were capital crimes punishable by death.
See http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tsa/tsa18.htm

What are the sources for you opinion? How do you know Jesus died, or even lived?

Toto

It's a story, and I am reading the story on its own terms. The authors that you list write that Jesus died on the cross and was buried, and later was seen alive in some form.

Your point? He only ate the fish and bread to prove to people who knew that he had died, that he had returned from death.

Again, I am just reading the story on its own terms, instead of trying to twist it into something else. It doesn't matter if the disciples lived or not.

The gospels do not portray Jesus as someone who deserved to die, even if you were Jewish and believed in blasphemy - because, in the story, Jesus was telling the truth. If you think that Jesus was a criminal blasphemer, you have really missed the point.

Cege

If you assume that Jesus had the power to resurrect himself and to switch off pain, then you can probably also appreciate that the NT description of the crucifixtion of Jesus does not intimate that he switched off pain. The NT claims that Jesus suffered on the cross just as anyone crucified in a similar method would suffer.

Crucifixtion is an excruciating way to die. That's the big deal about anyone who dies by that method.

aa5874

Well, it doesn't matter if it's a story or not, the authors claimed he died, but once he was seen alive after the crucifixion and his body was never seen at the tomb after visitation, then he would have survived the crucifixion, unless you think Jesus was a god.

According to the NT, Jesus was considered a blasphemer, not by me, but by the high priest. In effect, the NT presented a crucified blasphemer as the son of God of Moses.

I have not missed one single point, I think the crucifixion is fiction. What do you think?

Toto

<sigh>

I think it's a story. The people who think that the story was true DO think that Jesus was a God, or that a God did a miracle.

The NT does not ENDORSE the High Priest's accusations.

Just decide if you want to treat the story as true or not. If it's not necessarily true (the things that you're liable to read in the Bible) then you should probably assume that the parts about Jesus reappearing after he was crucified are definitely not true - i.e., part of the story. Maybe the crucifixion itself is also part of the story and is also not true. And the whole trial for blasphemy is also part of the story.

But the people who believe the story believe that the High Priest was wrong, Jesus was God, and there was no blasphemy, and Jesus was unfairly convicted by the evil Jews and Romans. If you accept the story on its own terms, your difficulties are not there. (There are other difficulties, but not yours.)

People who believe that there is some part of the story that is true will pick and choose the parts that they find are credible.

aa5874

I don't know where you get your information from but in the NT, Mark 15.13 to be specific, the people shouted again, "Crucify him", this seems like an endorsement to me.

If this the case, why then did you make the following statement: ]

I do need any directive from you to form an opinion of the crucifixion. I do my research, make observations, gather my data and form my opinion about any matter.

Toto

But Mark does not endorse that Jewish mob. And Matthew adds to it by have the mob say that Jesus' blood would be on them and their descendents.

Carry on, then. :wave: