Johnny Skeptic

My point is that even if there is credible historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, there is not credible historical evidence that he was crucified. If Jesus' blood was not shed, even if he rose from the dead, the Bible is obviously fraudulent.

Because it is hypocritical and inconsistent for God to forbid murder on the one hand, but require it on the other hand. The fraudulent New Testament writers would not have been able to get away with claiming that Jesus was put to death by his own followers, so they blamed his opponents.

If there is not credible historical evidence leading up the Resurrection, meaning the trial and conviction of Jesus, and his crucifixion, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that even if Jesus did rise from the dead, he might have done so for reasons much different from what the New Testament claims. If a man rises from the dead, all that that proves is that he rose from the dead, nothing more.

Doug Shaver

The evidence that he existed is also evidence that he was crucified.

Clouseau

Surely, if it is credible that someone should rise from the dead, not an everyday occurrence, it is reasonable that a person could die by crucifixion, quite an easy accomplishment within the Roman Empire.

Killing animals is not generally regarded as murder. However, it is not entirely inapt to think of it as a 'crime' in these cases, imv. Animal sacrifice was not merely the loss of a good animal. Animal sacrifice after the Israelite model was intended, imv, to stimulate feelings of "There but for the grace of God, go I," as the guilty person laid his hand on the head of the animal and killed it. His knees would, or should, have knocked. There should have been a more circumspect, more humble Israelite walking away from the scene of the 'crime'.

So he was put to death by one or the other group?

Sven

As far as I know, it were the priests who sacrified the animals, not persons who did wrong. Could you please point me to the sources which substantiate your view?

premjan

Didn't the priests benefit from the sacrifices (get a cut of the meat)? If so then they should have been eager to sacrifice.

Clouseau

"'If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin he committed a female goat without defect. He is to lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering."' Lev 4:27-29 NIV

Gawen

Forgive me for butting in, but isn't this thread about evidence of a crucifixion?
Transfiguration is an entirely different thread issue, I think.

Clouseau

That evidence is held necessary (rightly, I think) because of the pre-figurement of animal sacrifices.

Soul Invictus

A lot of things were mentioned that needn't be assumed to be true (Noah's Ark story, Genesis story, etc). I am curious about this as well.

While it was common, I don't think that yields creedance to the claim. Plausibility, yes, but credibility needs something substantial.

Sven

Thanks! And what happens when he sins intentionally?