Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

[Jagella]

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?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 180 by paarsurrey1]

It is further added:
There were stated to be some witnesses of Jesus' ascending to heaven and sitting on the right hand of God, as per NT Gospels*.
How could they have seen this scenario and witnessed it, please? Isn't it just a fiction/myth/superstition, please?

Regards
___________
*Mark 16:19
19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
http://biblehub.com/mark/16-19.htm

[paarsurrey1]

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.

Maybe they find Atheism or the like to be equally or more or most unreasonable.

Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?: no, the story is not error-free, please. It has been doctored to make Jesus a God, and that is not true. The real story tells Jesus to be a human, who did not die on the Cross and he survived against all odds, please.

Regards

[dio9]

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?

Yes that's what Romans did they crucified troublemakers like Jesus but even if Jesus' crucifixion is a legend there is always a kernel of truth in legends. During the Roman occupation the Jewish Messiah showed up and he was crucified.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

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.

"He that is hanged is accursed of God" (Deut.21:23)

Crucifixion wasn't simply embarrassing, it was degrading. It was the lowest possible form of death for a Jew.

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.

Since being restored to life could ONLY be regarded as a clear act of God Himself, not only would Jesus clearly NOT the "accursed of God," it would be clear that he was, at the very least, one of God's special chosen emissaries. The story of the "risen Christ" would serve to completely undo all that the priests had intended through the degraded and ignominious way Jesus had been put to death. If enough people could be convinced, the story would also serve to restore some very serious weight of credibility to the movement that Jesus had begun, and which the disciples would now inherit and attempt to carry on with. A crucified Jesus literally represents a dead end. The story of the "risen Christ" on the other hand provides a basis of an entirely new imperative, not to mention a very powerful and compelling passion story. A story that makes for great and dramatic storytelling. It in fact proved to be a brilliant move which served to completely reverse all that the Jewish priests had intended. And since it ultimately managed to evolve into one of the world's great religions, it worked far better then the apostles and early followers of Jesus could ever have possibly imagined

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 193 by dio9]

Yes that's what Romans did they crucified troublemakers like Jesus but even if Jesus' crucifixion is a legend there is always a kernel of truth in legends. During the Roman occupation the Jewish Messiah showed up and he was crucified.

Of anything said about Jesus, I think his crucifixion is most likely historical. If it was made up, then the reason for such a fabrication was to perhaps create sympathy for Jesus or to set up the resurrection.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 194 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Crucifixion wasn't simply embarrassing, it was degrading. It was the lowest possible form of death for a Jew.

Both the gospels and Paul seem to say otherwise. None of the four crucifixion accounts in the gospels portray Jesus as being ashamed of his execution. Rather, he is an innocent man who was bravely sacrificing himself to save his followers.

As for Paul, he has this to say:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24 NRSV)

Although some Jews and Greeks may have seen the crucifixion as shameful, Paul clearly did not.

Some people cite Hebrews 12:1-3 as indicating a feeling of shame for the crucifixion story:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

In this passage, Jesus, rather than his followers, "disregarded" the shame of the cross. Even Jesus is not said to have been ashamed of the crucifixion. It may have been only shameful in the eyes of others.

Since being restored to life could ONLY be regarded as a clear act of God Himself, not only would Jesus clearly NOT the "accursed of God," it would be clear that he was, at the very least, one of God's special chosen emissaries. The story of the "risen Christ" would serve to completely undo all that the priests had intended through the degraded and ignominious way Jesus had been put to death.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but you seem to be arguing for my position. Yes, the Romans meant crucifixions to be shameful. However, Christians turned the act on its head and made it into a glorious sacrifice that set the stage for the resurrection. It's a story that could have been easily made up to posit a Messiah who could cheat death.

[fredonly]

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

This criterion is a point in its favor, but in isolation it doesn't prove anything. There's other evidence, in particular Tacitus' reference to Jesus' execution by Pilate.I think more importantly there's also historical context: one needs to explain the rise of Christianity. It is plausible that an apocalyptic prophet gained a following, pissed off some officials which led to his getting executed. Distraught true believers then had experiences of some sort, interpreted as Jesus' presence. Coupled with prior beliefs in a general resurrection and in an imminent end-times, this was interpreted as Jesus resurrecting. The perceived injustice was rationalized as being a sacrifice.

That's just a theory, but it seems more plausible to me than to assume Christianity was founded on a conspiracy of lies. But my main point is that details have to fit some plausible context.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 197 by fredonly]

also remember many Jews were crucified by the Romans for their faith. In a sense not only Jesus but every crucified Jew who died for the cause turned that degrading form of death into a badge of courage.

[fredonly]

[Replying to post 197 by fredonly]

also remember many Jews were crucified by the Romans for their faith. In a sense not only Jesus but every crucified Jew who died for the cause turned that degrading form of death into a badge of courage.

Jesus was crucified for treason, based on the accusation he was king of the Jews. Provide a source that indicates Jews were crucified for their religious beliefs.