OLDMAN

I think you are on to something, when we consider the story completely and how the bible follows through...we have to consider it is all symbolism.

The story:

God so love the world he gave his only begotten son.
Jesus is born without sex, dies on the cross for our sins.
But Jesus doesn't die, three days later he is seen with others.
They watch as he ascends to heaven to be reunited with God.

If Jesus is reunited with the father in heaven, then there was no sacrifice by God of his only son. And if Jesus is alive (and coming again) then there is no death.

Therefore we are left with symbolism. A fake sacrifice and a fake death by God....what else could it be? Given that you can't really kill a God.

So please tell me what it means to sacrifice the word?

vijeno

I thought that the google translation wasn't that much worse than mine.

Here it is though: "That Jesus might have been baptized to receive forgiveness of sins, was an idea so offensive and mysterious to the early christian community that nobody would have invented it."

I think you probably shouldn't take my OP argument literally as an example. That was more or less my combination of a few arguments I heard from various christians. I did that just for illustration, because I initially didn't intend to talk about the validity of the argument, but its history.

I mean, I don't think the argument is specifically good, but it's not THAT silly per se. At least it has some creativity to it. It actually works if you assume that the gospels already see Jesus as born without sin, and that they do to their sources whatever they like. ... which is, methinks, exactly the crux of the matter - you cannot really do that.

IIRC, where Ehrman quotes it, he's mostly just summarizing what other theologians have said. I think that's fair enough.

aa5874

But, when you Examine the earliest gMark, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark you will IMMEDIATELY realise that the Jesus story had NOTHING to do with UNIVERSAL Salvation.

1. Jesus in gMark did NOT start a new religion under the name of Christ.

2. Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin in gMark.

3. There was another person called Christ who was performing miracles in gMark.

4. Jesus was NOT known as Christ to the Jews in gMark.

5. Jesus BARRED his disciples from telling anyone he was Christ in gMark.

6. Jesus requested that people Sacrifice or make OFFERINGS to the high Priest according to the Laws of Moses.

The UNIVERSAL Salvation story is a LATER Version of the Jesus story.

The very earliest Jesus story in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark ONLY show a character called Jesus that was ABANDONED, DENIED, REJECTED and EXECUTED.

The Jesus story was NOT originally a Gospel of universal Salvation.

In gMark, these are the very LAST words of Peter, a supposed disciple, recorded in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark.

Mark 14.70

Horatio Parker

No, the OP asks whether the argument from embarrassment for the crucifixion is modern or ancient, from who, when and where did it originate.

AFAICT, the ancients used the criterion of embarrassment to criticize the theology of Xtianity, but not as evidence against HJ. Which would suggest a modern origin.

jakejonesiv

He is a troll by any definition of the word I have seen.

JonA

Is there some meaning behind 'baptized to receive forgiveness of sins' that I'm not catching? I am not understanding how this argument relates to the one in the OP regarding crucifixion and messiahship.

That would explain why it makes no sense, I suppose.

As far as I can tell, the history of that argument starts with you and your invention of it in your OP on 15 October 2011.

But it is silly. The various parts of it don't even relate to one another.

Not really; and there's no reason to make such an assumption.

Well precisely. But whether you can or can't has nothing to do with the argument in the OP.

Yet no theologians so far presented have actually made the argument themselves.

Very strange.

Toto

It's a key part of Christian dogma. At least some of the people who wrote the gospels may have assumed that Jesus was born without sin.

archibald

It would, suggest a modern origin, for using the criterion in relation to an HJ argument, but since the OP is not about that, but about the criterion in relation to whether he was the messiah, it is an ancient argument. I thought we already covered this. The criterion is part of an ancient argument, used in relation to his messianic status, and latterly has been also used for HJ arguments.

DCHindley

Let's reverse the OP question:

"True Crucifixion, therefore shameful"

This was the charge thhat was thrown at the early Christians. Whether historical or not, all they need do is answer "No, Jesus wasn't crucified, that is being said about us by malicious people. He was merely an annoying wandering prophet and wisdom teacher who happened to resemble a 1960's college campus radical, and the powers that be were jealous of that free spirit, and destroyed them like peaceful protesters at an "occupy Oakland" rally."

This is exactly what they did when people started accusing them of eating babies and engaging in promiscuous sex during their meetings, which were closed to outsiders. "These things are lies said to defame us! We only allow our own (baptized members) into these sacred meetings, where we sing hymns and worship the one true God."

Maybe it is just me, but I find it hard to comprehend why folks who believed their savior had created a means for universal salvation, would create a myth that get them into hot water with the Roman authorities and thus limit their ability to obtain a hearing for their message.

It's like saying "We believe in universal selfless love and forgiveness, and a place in a new earth to be created fresh and perfect by God himself, if you believe that Adolf Hitler has made the ultimate sacrifice to atone for all bad things ever done to innocent people, and on account of his legally contracted Roman Catholic marriage to Eva Braun and selfless sacrifice to thwart the Ruler of this age, Stalin, he will come back in glory, cleansed of evil. to rule that age as Lord, for God will put everything under his feet." "Had the rulers of this age recognized him, they would not have counterattacked the Lord of Glory, Adolf Hitler, when he righteously attacked them."

DCH

Toto

Does not the Resurrection turn the crucifixion from shameful to triumphant?