Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-15-2006, 12:27 PM

This question has been around for a while, but the answer to this seems pretty simple.

One issue is that the Jews were fully capable of executing people themselves, but the Jews didn't use the practice of crucifixion.

If "crucified" was a term that was already in use, as evidenced by Paul, to describe the sacrifice of Christ, then the only option to rely this piece of theology was to have Christ crucified, and since the Romans were the ones who used crucifixion, then they had to be worked into the story.

The question would be then, why did Paul and other early Christians refer to Christ as "crucified"?

Peter Kirby · 12-15-2006, 12:29 PM

I would suggest Paula Fredriksen's Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews on this point.

--
Peter Kirby

dongiovanni1976x · 12-15-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I would suggest Paula Fredriksen's Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews on this point.

--
Peter Kirby

:notworthy: I couldn't agree more. Or there is a super short chapter in "From Jesus to Christ" where she lays out the most likely scenario possible using what little information we have. The little chapter is far more compelling if you read the background leading up to this short synopsis but it is interesting nonetheless.

dongiovanni1976x · 12-15-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

the only option to rely this piece of theology was to have Christ crucified, and since the Romans were the ones who used crucifixion, then they had to be worked into the story.

Why are you starting with the assumption that the Romans had to be "worked into the story"? An alternate possibility, one that requires a more parsimonious amount of explanation, is that the Romans actually did crucify Jesus.

Peter Kirby · 12-15-2006, 01:23 PM

I don't think the don and I are giving the type of answers sought by the OP.

I do find it hard to escape the idea that crucifixion takes place on a stick planted in the earth.

An early hymn in Philippians says that Christ endured death, "even death on a cross." 1 Corinthians says that Christ crucified is a folly to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. There is something to be said here about the abject humiliation and emptying of oneself that crucifixion represents.

I suppose that a mythical interpretation of the epistles would have to start with the idea that the pre-Pauline Christians wanted to believe in a savior who had emptied himself entirely of all glory (becoming like us in all ways but sin according to Hebrews), before being resurrected.

But damnit if that doesn't also imply leaving the celestial sphere and dirtying oneself with a body of flesh!

Wells would recognize this, and would put the crucifixion of Jesus (a real event or likely not) some couple of centuries before Paul. It's a thought, but not the one dominating these discussions.

--
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson · 12-15-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The question would be then, why did Paul and other early Christians refer to Christ as "crucified"?

Because he was.

Malachi151 · 12-15-2006, 01:34 PM

I think that there is something else though. Can we imagine "Christ stoned" (foregoing the obvious pun)?

I like Tertullian's comments:

Quote:

The charge of worshipping a cross. The heathens themselves made much of crosses in sacred things; nay, their very idols were formed on a crucial frame.

As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this point what, (let me ask,) is the difference between the Athenian Pallas, or the Pharian Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by a rough stock, without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The truth, however, after all is, that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now, every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross. Starting, then, from this rudimental form and prop, as it were, he applies a covering of clay, and so gradually completes the limbs, and forms the body, and covers the cross within with the shape which he meant to impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or whatever the material be of which he has determined to make his god. (This, then, is the process

after the cross-shaped frame, the clay; after the clay, the god. In a well-understood routine, the cross passes into a god through the clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it the consecrated (deity) begins to derive his origin. By way of example, let us take the case of a tree which grows up into a system of branches and foliage, and is a reproduction of its own kind, whether it springs from the kernel of an olive, or the stone of a peach, or a grain of pepper which has been duly tempered under ground. Now, if you transplant it, or take a cutting off its branches for another plant, to what will you attribute what is produced by the propagation? Will it not be to the grain, or the stone, or the kernel? Because, as the third stage is attributable to the second, and the second in like manner to the first, so the third will have to be referred to the first, through the second as the mean. We need not stay any longer in the discussion of this point, since by a natural law every kind of produce throughout nature refers back its growth to its original source; and just as the product is comprised in its primal cause, so does that cause agree in character with the thing produced. Since, then, in the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates them, here will be the original kernel and grain, from which are propagated the wooden materials of your idolatrous images. Examples are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself, But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.
- Ad Nationes; Tertullian, 197 CE: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Is not crucifixion a position that had something to perhaps do with mystery rituals, prayers, or feelings of empowerment?

One stretches out their hands facing the sun, and feels "Christ crucified within me"?

"Christ beat to death" just doesn't quite seem right.

Why did Paul preach "Christ crucified"? (and yes I assume that there is NO historical basis for this)

Peter Kirby · 12-15-2006, 01:35 PM

But of course, just that we can ask the question does not prompt the answer, "that he was," for we can also ask why Paul says Christ was raised on the third day, without generating a knee-jerk "because it is history" reaction.

There's a reason for everything, and so there is a reason for this, if the mythicist hypothesis is correct about Paul et al., but I can't say that I've discerned it yet.

--
Peter Kirby

dongiovanni1976x · 12-15-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I think that there is something else though. Can we imagine "Christ stoned" (foregoing the obvious pun)?

I had to laugh...I wasn't even reading into that until the side comment

Peter Kirby · 12-15-2006, 01:44 PM

I think "Christ crucified" should be seen as much like "Christ hanged" a couple centuries previous. Paul is saying, "we preach to you about a Christ who was strung up for dead". Gee, sounds super, Paul, some king of yours.

--
Peter Kirby

12-15-2006, 12:27 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Why is Jesus killed by the Romans? This question has been around for a while, but the answer to this seems pretty simple. One issue is that the Jews were fully capable of executing people themselves, but the Jews didn't use the practice of crucifixion. If "crucified" was a term that was already in use, as evidenced by Paul, to describe the sacrifice of Christ, then the only option to rely this piece of theology was to have Christ crucified, and since the Romans were the ones who used crucifixion, then they had to be worked into the story. The question would be then, why did Paul and other early Christians refer to Christ as "crucified"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-15-2006, 12:29 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I would suggest Paula Fredriksen's Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews on this point. -- Peter Kirby

12-15-2006, 01:23 PM	#5
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I don't think the don and I are giving the type of answers sought by the OP. I do find it hard to escape the idea that crucifixion takes place on a stick planted in the earth. An early hymn in Philippians says that Christ endured death, "even death on a cross." 1 Corinthians says that Christ crucified is a folly to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. There is something to be said here about the abject humiliation and emptying of oneself that crucifixion represents. I suppose that a mythical interpretation of the epistles would have to start with the idea that the pre-Pauline Christians wanted to believe in a savior who had emptied himself entirely of all glory (becoming like us in all ways but sin according to Hebrews), before being resurrected. But damnit if that doesn't also imply leaving the celestial sphere and dirtying oneself with a body of flesh! Wells would recognize this, and would put the crucifixion of Jesus (a real event or likely not) some couple of centuries before Paul. It's a thought, but not the one dominating these discussions. -- Peter Kirby

12-15-2006, 01:35 PM	#8
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	But of course, just that we can ask the question does not prompt the answer, "that he was," for we can also ask why Paul says Christ was raised on the third day, without generating a knee-jerk "because it is history" reaction. There's a reason for everything, and so there is a reason for this, if the mythicist hypothesis is correct about Paul et al., but I can't say that I've discerned it yet. -- Peter Kirby

12-15-2006, 01:44 PM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I think "Christ crucified" should be seen as much like "Christ hanged" a couple centuries previous. Paul is saying, "we preach to you about a Christ who was strung up for dead". Gee, sounds super, Paul, some king of yours. -- Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.