ApostateAbe

Many things that could have happened that we don't know, but probability is what matters, and the crucifixion of a dangerous cult leader is a historically plausible occurrence, so there is little need to introduce the theory as being an analogy or whatever. The association that Paul had with Peter and other associates of Jesus makes that theory less likely, since there are only two steps of difference between the earliest Christian writings and Jesus himself. There are more steps of difference between Jesus and the gospel of Mark, but you would sure need a lot of steps before you get all the claimed details of the crucifixion written in the gospel of Mark. History has room for many weird theories, and any weird theory has credibility as long as it has evidence to back it up, or else it is just another weird theory among many.

aa5874

I guess your own words will suffice.

If you assume Jesus existed then it is difficult to imagine how it could be that after the writer Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed after the Last Supper with his apostles, was crucified and died, that all those events were metaphorical.

Doug Shaver

I'm sorry, but I cannot discern the "that" that you're questioning.

Are you questioning the principle of parsimony? Are you questioning whether Paul believed that Jesus was crucified? Or are you questioning the nonexistence of evidence to the contrary of Jesus' having been crucified?

Maybe, but the proposition "If A then B" can never by itself be evidence for A, even if B is a fact.

In what scenario? Do you mean your hypothetical scenario that asks "What if Jesus was not really crucified?"

Doug Shaver

Or a mistake.

Sheshbazzar

There have been quite a few Christians down through the ages who have had no problem with believing in a Christ Jesus who either was not crucified, or managed to escape any actual death by crucifixion.
According to some, he died at the ripe old age of 106 and his grave may be visited in Shingo, a Japanese village northeast of Tokyo. Others say he died in Kashmir India at the age 120.
And many other similar stories have long circulated among believers, not all of whose faith ever required or embraced any actual physical Crucifixion or Resurrection.

In fact, most of these believers consider the mainstream opinion of the gospel stories to be a grotesque distortion both of the events, and of how the accounts are to be interpreted.

ChristMyth

I'm questioning the interpretation of the crucifixion story as it might have been believed by Paul and taught by a non crucified Jesus.

aa and others seem take the idea that Paul says that Jesus was crucified so, therefore a HJ must have been crucified. I'm saying that Paul can be interpreted in a different manner where Jesus, if viewed historically, was not crucified at all.

My point being that if we are to assume a HJ, should we automatically assume that even the most basic parts of the story must be assumed along with it in the same light that it has been before. I'm going on the idea that most scholars (and I will be the first to admit that I haven't read widely on the subject), when a HJ is stated, will go along with the idea that Jesus taught and was eventually crucified and died. Could this be incorrect? Aren't they looking at the evidence and seeing the exact same thing aa is seeing, that Paul said that Jesus was crucified so he must have been? Isn't this just an interpretation of the evidence which could be taken differently?

mountainman

Dear ChristMyth,

Given your assumptions and question one might consider severe ascetic practices such as those documented in recent history like the yogis of Tibet, or you could examine the texts from the Roman empire related to the "ancient ascetic path" [to inner knowledge]. An early example of the latter is perhaps "The Hymn of the Pearl". There are many examples of the "virtues" of asceticism in the Hellenist literature commencing with Pythagoras. (The 5 year vow of silence is also a mode of asceticism).

If you cannot understand any of the western former, then simply think about sitting under a Banyan tree for a few years as in the case of Buddha. In one sense, the ascetics might speak about the crucifixion of the body in a quasi-metaphorical and quasi-physical manner in that it becomes essentially renounced (like everything else). Maybe this is not what you were trying to get at with the idea of a a "metaphor" for the "death of the body". (cf: gnostic useage)

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

Of course he can. With enough imagination, the number of possible interpretations is humongous. But unless there is evidence that he intended to convey anything other than the ordinary meaning what he wrote, there is no justification for assuming that he meant anything other than what he wrote. And what he wrote was that Jesus was crucified.

You are using the same tactic that inerrantists use to prove the Bible's consistency. They decide what they want the Bible to say and then by hook or crook find some way to construe what the Bible says to make it appear to mean what they need it to mean in order to prove that it has no mistakes and no contradictions.

ChristMyth

Where is the evidence the Jesus was crucified or that Paul meant exactly what you think he meant by "crucified?" In all honesty, we can only say that we have no idea what Paul meant when he wrote what he wrote.


No, I'm not. I'm questioning one part of a larger text and our interpertation of that text. I am not trying to get the text to say "what I want it to say" any more than you are.

Paul writes "crucified" and I think that we can all agree that is what was written. But is an actual crucifixion the only way to look at what Paul meant? Everyone keeps saying that we should just assume that he is talking about an acutal crucifixion until evidence surfaces that he is using the term in some other way. No one, however, is stating what type of evidence should be provided to prove this point.

But what the Hell, I'll give it a shot.

If we read the Gospels and take the assumption that at least some of the text goes back to a HJ, most probably some of the parables recorded there, then why not believe that the crucifixion was not one more illustration used by Jesus to provide a point? The parables used things that the audience would have known about: sowers, prodigal sons, figs and vines, etc. Crucifixion was a well known form of torture and death among the Romans, most usually used for criminals (if I understand it correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong).

A parable could have been used by Jesus to show that the flesh of this life was criminal before God and the only way to destroy that flesh was to be crucified. Not a literal crucifixion but a spiritual one. Once you have crucified this flesh, you will be resurrected before God. This is the only way to experience the "Kingdom of God."

Jesus was the first to experience this spiritual crucifixion. The flesh of this world was buried and a new Jesus resurrected from the "tomb."

Paul could have understood this and this is what he could have preached. The gospel writers, on the other hand, got it wrong and made the same assumption that every one else does, the Jesus was really crucified.

Christmyth

Doug Shaver

I don't believe he existed, and so I don't believe he was crucified. But in the OP you insisted that this was not to be a debate about Jesus' historicity. You insisted that we assume historicity.

The historical Jesus, if we assume there was one, was crucified. If he was not, then I don't see in what useful sense he was the historical Jesus. To be a historical Jesus, there has to be more of a match between the real man and the gospel Jesus than just a name and a country of residence.

Obviously, we're capable of thinking up various possibilities. That is exactly what you have done. If you're suggesting that we are incapable of assessing the relative likelihood of those possibilities, then what is the point of your guesswork?

Paul wrote that Jesus was crucified. The conventional interpretation has been that Paul meant that Jesus was executed by being suspended in a certain manner from a certain wooden instrument of torture. You are saying that that interpretation could be wrong. Why should we think so? What evidence do you have that the conventional interpretation is in error?

If you have anything at all that you think is evidence, then bring it out and let's see it. Then we can argue about whether it is sufficient to prove your point.

Because the parables are presented as stories that Jesus told, and the gospel authors did not present the crucifixion as just another story that Jesus told. They present the crucifixion as something that happened to Jesus.

Yes, he could have told a parable to that effect. But the gospels don't say that he told such a parable. They say that he actually was crucified.

In the cases of the prodigal son, the sower, the banquet, the good Samaritan, etc., the gospel authors say "Jesus told his disciples this story." Sometimes they also say that he explained what it meant, but in every case they are explicit in stating that it was only a story that Jesus told. None of them suggests that the crucifixion was only a story. They could hardly be more explicit in affirming that it was a real event.