Amaleq13

The stories depict him as being framed for a Roman crime, though, since the Jewish leaders claimed to be unable to punish him themselves.

Josephus tells us he knew of one survivor (out of three interestingly enough) and fossil remains of a crucifixion victim that have been found (the only ones to ever have been found IIUC) were in a formal tomb rather than a common grave indicating the body had been given over to someone.

Doug Shaver

I don't find anything about the crucifixion story in general to be implausible. The events following his death are another matter, but I'm OK with the crucifixion itself.

aa5874

You're OK with the story that the offspring of the Holy Ghost, as stated in the NT, was crucified?

Or are you satisfied that crucifixions were a method of punishment in the 1st century?

I find the entire life of Jesus, the Son of God, born of the Spirit, implausible and that include his crucifixion.

Minimalist

Or recovered. When Cestius Gallus withdrew from the siege of Jerusalem in 66 what would have prevented relatives from running out and recovering the bodies of any crucified rebels?

jules?

I understand the original term for the cross used in the [or a ] gospel is stake rather than our idea of a cross. crucifixion was about public suffering to death. the question is what term does Paul use? Is he talking about Roman execution or simply the saviour dying in public for the public?

Amaleq13

It is the same termed used elsewhere and when the explicit shape of a cross is also given.

jules?

gospels are specific in saying that guards were on duty. Bribing and rescue attempts are not out of the question and Josephus was able to request the salvation of three of his friends but he was friendly with the commander. Mark describes a special set of circumstances to enable prophesy to come true, it is rather like a film where the hero manages to defy the odds almost to the point of disbelief. I am coming round to the idea that perhaps the ancient reader, even one with a knowledge of crucifixion and Jewish law could get sucked in by the tale to point odf saying it could have happened that way although unlikely.

Doug Shaver

I'm OK with treating the NT statements about Jesus' birth and Jesus' death as if it were possible that one could be true and other false.

aa5874

Well, if you treat the birth as false, how do you get this character on a cross, bearing in mind that this same Jesus was up in a mountain and transfigured himself?

Which Jesus came back from the transfiguration? You think Peter knew?

Minimalist

I regard the "gospels" as a load of crap, jules. If a body were left up on a cross to rot, as was the usual Roman practice, there wouldn't have been a tomb to have to "guard" would there?

The whole story is one implausibility piled on top of another.


Why would "Pilate" give a rat's ass if his followers "stole" the body if he had just given the body to Joseph of Aramathea....(allegedly one of the group who demanded that he be crucified in the first place?) He had already undercut his own authority by turning the body over anyway. Why care what happened to it? It suggests that "Pilate" had a premonition of future events which seems oddly out of place. It smacks of "special pleading."

I find it far more likely that nothing of the sort every happened.