Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

Jagella · Post by **Jagella** » Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:08 pm

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

Another difficulty for the embarrassment theory is that the Romans crucified many Jews and were hated for it. The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion story to create sympathy for Jesus among the Jews and even gentiles who may have lost loved ones to the horror of crucifixion. Christians could claim then as they do today that "Jesus died for you" as they might say to a potential convert. Laying guilt trips on people can be a powerful motivation to unbelievers to join a religious group.

Yet another rationale for fabricating the crucifixion story is that it sets up the resurrection of Jesus. Without a crucified Christ his followers could not have claimed Jesus' rose from the dead, perhaps the greatest miracle of the New Testament.

Finally, if we are smart enough to assume that a presumably embarrassing story like the resurrection is unlikely to be made up and hence is likely to be true, then perhaps the early Christians thought the same way. They may have fabricated the crucifixion to lead unbelievers to conclude that Jesus was real because nobody would make up an embarrassing story! If so, then their trick is having its intended effect on modern historicists.

In any event, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for fabricating the crucifixion story. There are probably many you can think of. I should point out that the crucifixion story hasn't hurt Christianity much; Catholic churches proudly display paintings of the crucified Christ and place crucifixes in all their churches. Few if any will leave the church over this belief.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:42 am

Jagella posted:

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

RESPONSE: "We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews"

"An unorthodox sect of Jews" Lets examine the facts of history. Following Jesus death his followers remained a very orthodox sect of Jew known as "Way" or the "Nazoreans (see Acts)

Mostly they resided in Jerusalem where they were active Temple members. The leader was James the Just well respected for his Jewish orthodoxy. They were members of various Jewish synagogues.

About 85 AD they began to claim Jesus was divine as well as the messiah. This caused the "parting of the ways.' Christians were labeled as "minim" or apostates in the 12th (Jewish) benediction.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:06 pm

No self respecting "god" of two millennia ago would ever allow themselves to not be executed so that they could rise from the dead. Ultimately, I don't believe Christians even care if Christ actually existed or not.

marco · Post by **marco** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:18 pm

Peter wrote: No self respecting "god" of two millennia ago would ever allow themselves to not be executed so that they could rise from the dead. Ultimately, I don't believe Christians even care if Christ actually existed or not.

I don't think Zeus would have allowed it. I like Zeus a lot but though he features in history he's not taken seriously these days. Perhaps that is happening to Jesus too. Your accusation against uncaring Christians would be even more interesting were it supported. Can it be?

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:30 pm

marco wrote:
Peter wrote: No self respecting "god" of two millennia ago would ever allow themselves to not be executed so that they could rise from the dead. Ultimately, I don't believe Christians even care if Christ actually existed or not.

I don't think Zeus would have allowed it. I like Zeus a lot but though he features in history he's not taken seriously these days. Perhaps that is happening to Jesus too. Your accusation against uncaring Christians would be even more interesting were it supported. Can it be?

My opinion is based on the fact that Christians already ignore science in order to believe in their god. If science could prove Christ never existed that fact would be ignored too. My ancestors were mostly from Norway so I'm partial to the Nordic Gods.

marco · Post by **marco** » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:47 pm

Peter wrote:

My opinion is based on the fact that Christians already ignore science in order to believe in their god.

I've spoken to a few highly intelligent Christians who are scientists. It is best to make one's accusations against the best; it gives them more weight.

Peter wrote:
If science could prove Christ never existed that fact would be ignored too.

I'm not sure how science would do that, but it would be right to argue the point.

Peter wrote:
My ancestors were mostly from Norway so I'm partial to the Nordic Gods.

I think the image of the rainbow bridge, Bifrst, surpasses the Biblical use of the rainbow as a "covenant". Go well.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:55 am

marco wrote:
Peter wrote:

My opinion is based on the fact that Christians already ignore science in order to believe in their god.
I've spoken to a few highly intelligent Christians who are scientists. It is best to make one's accusations against the best; it gives them more weight.

Those are the most bewildering. They're not ignorant or stupid so they must have a real need to believe.

marco · Post by **marco** » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:00 pm

Peter wrote:
marco wrote:
Peter wrote:

My opinion is based on the fact that Christians already ignore science in order to believe in their god.
I've spoken to a few highly intelligent Christians who are scientists. It is best to make one's accusations against the best; it gives them more weight.
Those are the most bewildering. They're not ignorant or stupid so they must have a real need to believe.

The ignorant are occasionally right and the wise horribly wrong. No book is so bad we can learn nothing from it.

And though I enjoy the provocative writings of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens they overstate their case occasionally and enter the field of regarding their own suppositions as fact. They also benefit financially from their hyperbole. Poor old Jesus didn't. Where is truth?

paarsurrey1 · Post by **paarsurrey1** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:17 pm

marco wrote:
Peter wrote:
marco wrote:
Peter wrote:

My opinion is based on the fact that Christians already ignore science in order to believe in their god.
I've spoken to a few highly intelligent Christians who are scientists. It is best to make one's accusations against the best; it gives them more weight.
Those are the most bewildering. They're not ignorant or stupid so they must have a real need to believe.
The ignorant are occasionally right and the wise horribly wrong. No book is so bad we can learn nothing from it.

And though I enjoy the provocative writings of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens they overstate their case occasionally and enter the field of regarding their own suppositions as fact. They also benefit financially from their hyperbole. Poor old Jesus didn't. Where is truth?

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, they have a shallow knowledge of Religion proper and whatever they have written against religion is not science even, as religion is not a subject/discipline of science. Right, please?
Regards

dio9 · Post by **dio9** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:28 pm

Not anymore but crucifixions happen. It is not hard to believe A person like Jesus could have been caught up and crucified for criticizing the Caesars who thought they were gods. Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans . Jesus was one of them.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 9:38 pm

[Replying to post 189 by dio9]

Criticize them?

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

He had his follwers eating out of their hands for centuries!