Jesus nailed to a cross? Evidence does not support it

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In the U.S. today christianity is kinda popular. What's really popular, however, is the blood and gore associated with christianity. Mel Gibson even made his bloodbath movie, just like many of his other movies, full of gratuitous violence and bloodletting.

Remember in Passion pounding the nails and how bits of blood would spurt up into the air with every blow? It's the same scene as when he was repeatedly hacking that British soldier with the tomahawk in the Patriot. Blood flying up into the air with every swing. Braveheart was no different. Christians at the time no doubt loved watching gladiators hack each other apart.

Christians love violence. The gospel crucifiction story is horrendously violent, making it popular stuff for christians then and now.

Well, they love that Jesus made such a sacrifice so they wouldn't have to do anything but say they are 'born again'.

And go collect their eternal riches.

 

[bilby]

Personally, I find the in-story establishment of Pilate's guilt at having crucified an innocent man as sufficient reason for his allowing his removal and the decent burial to take place.

Sure.

Because people with the absolute power of life and death over an unruly population often publicly and unnecessarily retract a death sentence after it has been carried out, because they feel guilty.

Except all of them, ever.




The idea that a person in Pilate's situation could do such a thing without causing riots is laughable; the idea that he would do so is almost as implausible as the idea that the corpse will suddenly re-animate by magic.

It's plausible only if we discount thousands of years of observation of human behaviour in favour of an utterly unrealistic tale of a person with the necessary ruthlessness to rise to power in the Roman Empire suddenly feeling bad about the possibility that some of the troublemakers he condemned might have been innocent.

 

[Sarpedon]

There was no public retraction. Just allowing the corpse to be taken down and buried.

Like Cao Cao did with the quartermaster he falsely accused of embezzeling foodstuffs during his campaign against Yuan Shu.

There, I gave a counterexample.

 

[bilby]

There was no public retraction. Just allowing the corpse to be taken down and buried.

The corpse that was on public display? Allowing it to be taken down IS a public retraction.

Like Cao Cao did with the quartermaster he falsely accused of embezzeling foodstuffs during his campaign against Yuan Shu.

There, I gave a counterexample.

Not really. The two stories are quite dissimilar, other than in the high probability that both are fiction.

 

[Bronzeage]

The corpse that was on public display? Allowing it to be taken down IS a public retraction.

Like Cao Cao did with the quartermaster he falsely accused of embezzeling foodstuffs during his campaign against Yuan Shu.

There, I gave a counterexample.

Not really. The two stories are quite dissimilar, other than in the high probability that both are fiction.

The corpse was taken down so it could be buried before the start of the Jewish Sabbath. Whatever technical details of crucifixion in 1st century Palestine may have been, there's nothing implausible about the story. A Roman Governor who was willing to execute a person for a political crime, in order to placate local religious leaders, would not have had a problem with allowing a quick burial in order to comply with the same leader's customs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The corpse that was on public display? Allowing it to be taken down IS a public retraction.

Not really. The two stories are quite dissimilar, other than in the high probability that both are fiction.

The corpse was taken down so it could be buried before the start of the Jewish Sabbath. Whatever technical details of crucifixion in 1st century Palestine may have been, there's nothing implausible about the story. A Roman Governor who was willing to execute a person for a political crime, in order to placate local religious leaders, would not have had a problem with allowing a quick burial in order to comply with the same leader's customs.

If we're talking about the plausibility of a story for determining historicity we should talk about the whole story, not bits here and there. If we're allowed to pick out bits of stories then lots of implausible stories are now historically plausible, even though they didn't happen as written. Paul Bunyan is therefore historically plausible.

 

[iolo]

There were lots of Romans called Julius, so obviously Roman history is a Martian plot. Grow up!

A few hundred years ago most every westerner believed the Jesus Tale verbatim. Many have since grown up. They also believed that a spaceman was interested in their vaginas and penises and how they used these sex organs, and they've grown up. And they believed that everything was made by the spaceman some thousands of years ago, and they've since grown up.

Many have not grown up when it comes to many aspects of such "consensus" knowledge, this is certain.

I think only the Nineteenth Century ever went in for literal belief. Before that they had all sorts of different approaches.

 

[Learner]

If we're talking about the plausibility of a story for determining historicity we should talk about the whole story, not bits here and there. If we're allowed to pick out bits of stories then lots of implausible stories are now historically plausible, even though they didn't happen as written. Paul Bunyan is therefore historically plausible.

The whole biblical story to the whole story of Paul Bunyan is considerably mismatched in comparison.


I'm with you on this in this regard.

 

[Bronzeage]

The corpse was taken down so it could be buried before the start of the Jewish Sabbath. Whatever technical details of crucifixion in 1st century Palestine may have been, there's nothing implausible about the story. A Roman Governor who was willing to execute a person for a political crime, in order to placate local religious leaders, would not have had a problem with allowing a quick burial in order to comply with the same leader's customs.

If we're talking about the plausibility of a story for determining historicity we should talk about the whole story, not bits here and there. If we're allowed to pick out bits of stories then lots of implausible stories are now historically plausible, even though they didn't happen as written. Paul Bunyan is therefore historically plausible.

Basically, the supposition of this thread is that the resurrection of Jesus might not be true, because accepted details about the crucifixion lack verisimilitude.

This is a claim somewhat similar to saying Jesus never existed because 1st Century Palestinians were dark skinned with brown eyes, while all images of Jesus portray him as fair skinned with blue eyes.

 

[Oecolampadius]

I seem to recall from my gospel: "And what should be done to Jesus, called Christ? Let him be crucified!" So not EVERY word refers to a stake, rather than a cross. Saying that someone should be crucified implies a cross. The question of why it was called a stake is beyond my ken, as I am more familiar with ancient art than with ancient Greek.

The Greek word for "cross" in the New Testament is stauros, the basic meaning of which is "stake." The verb "crucify" is stauroō, to hang someone on a stauros. Some scholars are of the opinion that Jesus carried the crossbeam to the execution site where a vertical stake was already in place to receive the crossbeam. However, the gospel accounts have Jesus carrying a stauros; but perhaps stauros in these instances was simply a metonym for the crossbeam.

Back to the engraving on the gem: A couple of illustrations from other representations of crucifixion in the articles show a second crossbeam affixed to the vertical to support the victim's feet. On the gem, the victim's feet appear to be supported on the line of text as if on a crossbeam. If it was the artisan's intention to show the victim's feet dangling unsupported, there is an explanation for how the body's weight could be supported by other than just the hands. Some scholars are of the opinion that the vertical was sometimes equipped with some kind of peg or strut projecting out of it which served as a support for the victim's crotch to take some of the load bearing off the victim's hands. Such a detail might have been too small to carve on the gem.

 

[bilby]

If we're talking about the plausibility of a story for determining historicity we should talk about the whole story, not bits here and there. If we're allowed to pick out bits of stories then lots of implausible stories are now historically plausible, even though they didn't happen as written. Paul Bunyan is therefore historically plausible.

Basically, the supposition of this thread is that the resurrection of Jesus might not be true, because accepted details about the crucifixion lack verisimilitude.

This is a claim somewhat similar to saying Jesus never existed because 1st Century Palestinians were dark skinned with brown eyes, while all images of Jesus portray him as fair skinned with blue eyes.

Yeah, there is something a bit pointless about this discussion. When the story is "This guy was crucified, and then after he was dead, he came back to life", it's pretty obvious that it's the final clause that is highly suspect, and requires some serious evidentiary support if we are not to discard the tale as obviously fictional.

To waste time debating what, exactly, we mean by 'was crucified', or even 'This guy', is to miss the elephant in the room - 'he came back to life' is, according to all experience, impossible. It's that bit we need to be provided with compelling evidence for; the details of what the guy looked like, or exactly what is meant by 'crucified' (other than the clear implication that it was fatal) are largely irrelevant.

These facts become more relevant if we consider counter-hypotheses; If we accept, for the sake of argument, that 'he came back to life' is an honest appraisal of a real event, then we can say 'But after only a few days on a cross, it's possible that he was in a coma, and that the witnesses mistook that for death - rendering his apparent return to life less implausible'. This misses the point that we have absolutely no basis for accepting the ad argumentum; The best we can do here is say 'If this isn't completely made up, then it might not have been a miracle' about something that we have every justification for thinking IS completely made up.

It's pointless to discuss how Superman could fool the citizens of Metropolis into thinking he can fly, by 'merely' leaping a tall building in a single bound. The fact is that Superman, like Jesus, is a fictional character, and can do anything, and have any attribute, at the whim of the person telling the tale.

And that remains true, even if we find evidence that there really is (or was) a mild-mannered reporter called Clark Kent, whose girlfriend's name is Lois, living in a large city in the USA. Such trivia, no matter how implausible or coincidental we may find them, are not support for the acceptance of fiction as reality.

 

[iolo]

The question is why Christianity spread so quickly, and how a recent historical event could somehow be made up and have such powerful emotional effects on so many. Just denying American fundamentalism doesn't help much.

 

[Sarpedon]

Islam and Mormonsim also spread rapidly. No reason for explanation. If one religion spread much more rapidly than all others, then one might have to explain.

Instead, one can say that religions spread rapidly when conditions are ripe for them, and that these conditions might vary from religion to religion.

For christianity, it is sufficient to note the religious turmoil in the Roman Empire allowed its initial spread, and then becoming the State religion of the Roman Empire ensured its further and continued spread.

 

[Oecolampadius]

how a recent historical event could somehow be made up and have such powerful emotional effects on so many

I think this is a key point. A first-century charismatic cult leader has a reversal of fortune and ends up being executed in a particularly gruesome fashion. His emotionally traumatized followers go into denial and end up making him bigger than life after his death.

 

[iolo]

how a recent historical event could somehow be made up and have such powerful emotional effects on so many

I think this is a key point. A first-century charismatic cult leader has a reversal of fortune and ends up being executed in a particularly gruesome fashion. His emotionally traumatized followers go into denial and end up making him bigger than life after his death.

That is why Hitler's followers are in power in Germany, I expect!

 

[Oecolampadius]

I think this is a key point. A first-century charismatic cult leader has a reversal of fortune and ends up being executed in a particularly gruesome fashion. His emotionally traumatized followers go into denial and end up making him bigger than life after his death.

That is why Hitler's followers are in power in Germany, I expect!

I remember from my youth a news article about the making of a German movie featuring Hitler as a character. When the actor playing Hitler was taking a break near the set, he was approached by a group of teary-eyed, hysterical old women who thought that der Führer surely must have been raised from the dead.

 

[iolo]

That is why Hitler's followers are in power in Germany, I expect!

I remember from my youth a news article about the making of a German movie featuring Hitler as a character. When the actor playing Hitler was taking a break near the set, he was approached by a group of teary-eyed, hysterical old women who thought that der Führer surely must have been raised from the dead.

 

[Sarpedon]

I thought that story was about Charles De Gaulle and the movie was "Day of the Jackal."

Good movie.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

Seems the Christian religion is about an all loving God and he sent his only son to improve our behaviour, and we did a real bad thing and we have to be sooooorry and very happy

Phew!

A.