Kimpatsu

Greetings, all.
I was recently in an online debate with a theist, who argued that he was a Xpian because he subscribes to the notion of "qui bono" (who profits?), and as Jesus died horribly on the cross, all the claims about him being the son of god must be true. The thought occurred to me that maybe the crucifixion itself never happened; does anyone have any details to help me out here?
Thank you in advance for all your input.
Best,

Peter Kirby

While one can question the minor premise that Jesus was crucified, I'd recommend focusing on the major premise that a person who was crucified must have been right in claiming to be a son of a god. The story goes, for example, that Empedocles threw himself into a volcano, but that does not make him a god or a son of a god. The argument is ridiculous, and the reason it is ridiculous is the leap from crucifixion to deity. Thousands of Palestinians were crucified in the first century. Spartacus was crucified. So what?

If you want to investigate the historicity of Jesus generally, not necessarily just to win this argument, I recommend my site Did Jesus Exist? Follow the links from there, particularly to Earl Doherty's web site.

best,
Peter Kirby

goat37

from what I understand, there were many crucifixions around that time. Jesus wasn't the only one that it happened to. If i remember correctly, it was actually done in a field where they regularly held them.

You could crucify someone now (not legally, but you could), that doesnt make them any closer to God.


That reminds me of that old joke from "The Crow":

Jesus walks into a hotel, hands the keep 3 nails and asks "Can you put me up for the night?"

Iasion

Greetings Kimpatsu,

Firstly,
to argue that Jesus MUST have been the Son of God because he suffered horrible crucifixion is laughable - many people were crucified - were they ALSO the sons of God?

Secondly,
One astonishing fact about the life of Jesus of Nazareth is that not even the early Christians knew it !

Specifically,
NOT ONE SINGLE early Christian mentions :

* Joseph and Mary, Bethlehem or Nazareth
* the birth stories, the Magi,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* Pilate, Herod, Lazarus, Nicodemus
* Mary and Martha and the anointing
* miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the Temple
* the trumphal entry
* the passion of Jesus
* the Sermon on the Mount
* the transfiguration
* the trial of Jesus
* the twelve disciples
* Calvary, 2 thieves
* the empty tomb !!
* Peter and "the keys" (not even in "Peter"s epistle!)
* etc...
until early-mid 2nd century when the Gospel myths arise.

Notbly,
the fact that no Christian mentions the EMPTY TOMB (the central event of the Christian myth) until about a CENTURY after the events surely shows it was a late invention.

You can see an overview of this astonishing fact here :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...-Timeline.html

All the early references (e.g. Paul) are vague spiritual conceptions without any mention of historical names, dates, places.

This silence of the Christian record is matched by contemporaries - no mention of Jesus is made by any contemporaries, even though there were many who wrote related works (e.g. Justus of Tiberias, Philo Judaeus)

This record can be seen here:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html

In short,
Jesus of Nazareth was unknown until early-mid 2nd century - clearly a myth which arose well after the alleged events.

Iasion

Peter Kirby

Iasion, what if our dating scheme is fatuous?

There are many times in which I had to make a guess, or appeal to authority, when placing a putative date on a document for the ECW site.

For example, how do we know when the Egerton Gospel was written? If we believe it belongs to the second century, what evidence is that based on?

And you can't say that it's because no Jesus stories existed in the first century, as that would beg the question. We need an independent basis for dating documents from which we can later theorize about the development of Christian literature and the origin of the Jesus stories.

I say it is possible that the Egerton Gospel was written in the year 63 CE in the spring. Show me wrong.

My web site is not proof, nor is any authority. I want real evidence.

best,
Peter Kirby

Radcliffe Emerson

I was told by a former Methodist minister they now know that the Romans left bodies on the wood until they were completely rotted away, then threw them to dogs to be eaten. They did not allow anyone near them, and certainly would not allow anyone to remove a body for religious reasons. The Romans cared squat about the Jewish religion, they didn't care if someone would want to remove a body for Passover.
So, IF someone like that existed and was crucified, their body was rotted then eaten by dogs, not stuck in a tomb to walk out afterward.
There also would have been no way for someone to steal the body off the wood, as they were heavily guarded.

Arken

While I agree with most of your post, this part may or may not be true about early Christians, but there is a small amount of evidence for the existence of Pilate (for example, a stone on which is carved TIBERIVS for the emperor and PONTIVS possibly for Pilate found in Jerusalem), and there is more than one Roman contemporary with Herod who wrote about him so for those two at least we have some evidence.

Spenser

I don't think his point was that Pilate or Herod didn't exist, more that they were not mentioned in the Jesus Story by any early Xians. They were worked in later as to attempt to establish some sort of historical grounds...

Arken

Well even that I would be surprised about. I mean, Herod was extremely important sociopolitically to the time. If they didn't mention him then something weird was going on.

Vorkosigan

LOL.

Vorkosigan