Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 03-13-2009, 01:18 AM

The crucifixion [to the attentive student] is to demonstrate that this God Father of Jesus Christ was a desperate case of psychotic INSANITY and vicious pleasure for blood.
I would have suggested to this “Father” that if the youngster had to die, man, give him a quick death, like drowning or fulminated with a bolt of lightning, etc.
Something simple & quick, for God’s sake!

Julio · 03-13-2009, 01:25 AM

The loose law of accretion establishes that if Jesus tripped over a rock and hurt his big toe, in three centuries the oral storytelling would have changed to crucifixion by the Romans!
Obviously, those with an eye for religious COMMERCE went out with great effort to enlarge the script and live their parasitical lifestyle from the profits [popes & cardinals]. Isn’t this possibly biblical?…

Solo · 03-13-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

Quote:

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.

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.

I don't know who the "we" represents in the statement but the people whose books I have read had a lot of interesting ideas about what Paul meant.

Quote:

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.

Who is "everybody" ? I don't think you have to "assume" too much in accepting that Paul meant "actual" crucifixion in case of Jesus (in contrast to the metaphorical crucifixion that Paul imagined he himself suffered in his frenetic effort to save the world by being holier everyone else).

Here is one way to determine what Paul meant. You can go through Paul's letters and check what Paul says about Christ's death. I think the most compelling argument that Paul meant that Christ died literally, comes in 1 Cr 15. Paul reasons that if there is no resurrection of the dead (as some in Corinth claimed), then "Christ is not risen". In other words, Christ remains dead. Now, assure yourself that it would be hard to argue that Paul meant "death" metaphorically in that passage. Right ? You would likely waste your time. Death being the scarrier of the two certainties in life, to make promises on behalf of Jesus to defeat "death" only in the abstract would not have made much of an impact on anyone's belief system.
So, Paul meant Jesus was "actually" dead. How did he die ? Paul says he was crucified. Chances are that if he was crucified and also "actually" dead, then the crucifixion was the cause of death. If he "actually" lived through it and died later in Shrinagar of food poisoning, then Paul's preaching at Corinth again would make no sense.

Ok ? Don't take this as a gospel - it's just a suggestion in case you really find Paul's meanings unclear.

Quote:

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?

Ok, it's an idea. The first problem with it is that Paul claims in his letters that the cross of Jesus is a stumbling block to the Jews, and the first gospel (Mark) claims that Jesus disciples (also Jewish) ran away from witnessing their leader's crucifixion.

Quote:

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.

Except again, Jesus in the gospels seems to be saying that it's ok to eat and drink and be merry sometimes. See his reply to JtB's disciples (Mk 2:18-22, Mt. 9:14-17, Lk 5:33-38). You do not get that from Paul, who indeed seemed to think any indulgence of the flesh calls for the death penalty. Even when his practical sense defeats his absolutist spirit-flesh dualism and drives him to accept grudgingly that sex is a fact of life, one still gets the feeling that the thought people actually enjoy sex and forget the Lord while at it, must have been particularly galling to Paul.

Jiri

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

03-13-2009, 01:18 AM	#21
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	The crucifixion [to the attentive student] is to demonstrate that this God Father of Jesus Christ was a desperate case of psychotic INSANITY and vicious pleasure for blood. I would have suggested to this “Father” that if the youngster had to die, man, give him a quick death, like drowning or fulminated with a bolt of lightning, etc. Something simple & quick, for God’s sake!

03-13-2009, 01:25 AM	#22
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	The loose law of accretion establishes that if Jesus tripped over a rock and hurt his big toe, in three centuries the oral storytelling would have changed to crucifixion by the Romans! Obviously, those with an eye for religious COMMERCE went out with great effort to enlarge the script and live their parasitical lifestyle from the profits [popes & cardinals]. Isn’t this possibly biblical?…

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.