Ben C Smith

Deuteronomy 23.1 does not say that castration rivals crucifixion for loss of shame. And I did not claim that no nation existed which looked down on castration.

As Hengel strives to show, the stigma of death by crucifixion was all but universal.

Ben.

jjramsey

The examples you described are embarassing because they are inherently unlikely. By contrast, there is nothing inherently unlikely about a crucifixion in the first century. If you told me that you were anally probed by aliens, well, yes, the story is embarassing, but there are other considerations that make me doubt it. If on the other hand, you told me that you flunked an English exam, I would have good reason to believe you. It's not inherently unlikely, and it's not something that you would want to make up. This is the rationale behind the embarrassment criterion. Actually, Hong Xiu-quan is an interesting parallel, but not necessarily in your favor. If someone had told me that he had committed suicide by poison, but had risen to heaven and been given new bowels, I could easily doubt the latter part, but I would not have such a strong warrant for rejecting the claim of suicide. Similarly, if someone is proclaiming that a crucified man is a miraculous savior of the world, I would easily have reason to doubt the "miraculous savior" part, but not as strong a warrant for doubting the crucifixion aspect.

Also, saying "The early Christians saw the Crucified One in a vision" doesn't answer the question of what prodded a belief in a crucified Messiah. All it does is push back the question one step: "What prodded the vision of a crucified Messiah?" This also leads to other questions, such as why a vision of a crucified Messiah is a more plausible explanation for the claims of Christianity, in contrast to the idea that the disciples of Jesus were too attached to their master to admit that he was a failure and that they were failures for following him.

jakejonesiv

IYO, was Jesus castrated?

Not to Christians.

Jake

jakejonesiv

OK, I see what you are saying.
Since they already believed that their pagan gods were crucified, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, and born of a virgin, they ought to believe the same thing about Jesus.

But since the devil had diabolically planted these beliefs ahead of time about the pagan gods, they should stop believing in them.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Not in my best judgment, no.

Exactly. Not to Christians. But to everybody else. The question, then, is the likelihood that some pagan or Jew somewhere would have invented a crucified messiah and thus become the first Christian. I say that it is possible, but not very likely, and that other scenarios (such as the historicity of a messiah figure who was indeed crucified) ought certainly to be explored.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

Can't you think of any possibilties other than the two you listed? :bulb:

Jake

Ben C Smith

Sure; the first I listed was the one on the table in this thread, and the second is my own preferred option, and was just an example at any rate. But yes, I imagine there are quite a few other possibilities, including the one that Michael mentioned, the authoritative vision.

Ben.

jjramsey

It is already clear from the above posts that this is a gross distortion of what Justin Martyr was saying. What Justin Martyr tried to show was that the pagan myths were inferior imitations of Hebrew prophecy, and that therefore his readers should accept the real deal and embrace Christianity instead. Notice that to do this he had to make strained connections to "prove" that the pagan myths were distorted imitations.

jakejonesiv

Do you think that myths can evolve over time?

Jake

jakejonesiv

Here is the source.
"...Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter"

Do you think Justin was using the Jedi mind trick?

Jake