Jesus is never crucified?

[Leo Caesius]

Oh, for Christ's sake listen to yourself. Because you "are of the opinion" that something didn't happen, there's no point in discussing it at all? That's pretty fucking arrogant, if you'll pardon my French.

I wish people would stop confusing historical revisionism with alternate history. You're completely entitled to your own opinions on the subject, but you're not entitled to denigrate other people's beliefs.

 

[MrP]

This question is more theological than historical. The Jesus of the gospels has never even been historically verified. I am of the opinion that Christianity is based upon a mythological Christ. Therefore to debate whether he was crucified or not really is not relevant.

You ever met AMBOMB?

 

[Nekromans]

You ever met AMBOMB?

He did recommend this rather interesting book - somethink about Jesus and mysteries. Personally, I'm rather looking forward to it - Jesus the detective? Rock on!

 

[el t]

Jesus.

I don't think that a theological topic is appropriate for this. The life of Jesus is not like debating something like what would have happened if the Muslims had won the battle of Tours. Jesus is best left to the theologians rather than the historians.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Jesus had to be crucified... He was destined to die in the most horrible and despicable way so to carry the sins of the world...

 

[edvader]

There was an WI article in one of the What Ifs books.Don't know what volume but I will look it up.Jesus is not crucified and allowed to return home and amasses a large following.His thoughts and sayings spread over the Empire and even beyond.He dies at 97 and after burial his body disappears and people start seeing the risen Christ.The article ends with Constantine deciding where to build a new -synagogue.The books may still be in print.Anyone remember the author?

 

[MrP]

I don't think that a theological topic is appropriate for this. The life of Jesus is not like debating something like what would have happened if the Muslims had won the battle of Tours. Jesus is best left to the theologians rather than the historians.

It's a legitimate thing to consider. I don't particularly feel comfortable with discussions about religious figures - especially the dozen or so WI no Muhammed threads - but there's no real reason for people not to consider them calmly, tastefully and politely. If accepting - for the sake of an intellectual exercise - the possibility of the existence of the Biblical Jesus is not to your taste, then you could consider - since you seem to hold that the Biblical account was fictionalised from pre-existing sources - that this debate is about how the world would be if the account had been fictionalised in a different manner.

 

[MrP]

There was an WI article in one of the What Ifs books.Don't know what volume but I will look it up.Jesus is not crucified and allowed to return home and amasses a large following.His thoughts and sayings spread over the Empire and even beyond.He dies at 97 and after burial his body disappears and people start seeing the risen Christ.The article ends with Constantine deciding where to build a new -synagogue.The books may still be in print.Anyone remember the author?

It's in More What If? Pontius Pilate Spares Jesus, Carlos M. N. Eire, pp.48 ff.

 

[Hendryk]

Jesus had to be crucified... He was destined to die in the most horrible and despicable way so to carry the sins of the world...

Even assuming for the sake of the argument that this whole Son of God thing is true (and it does take quite a bit of intellectual effort), I can think of half a dozen equally gruesome ways for him to die. He could have been impaled, for example--leading Christians to use a sharp stick as their holy symbol.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Very well. What historical evidence do we have for the battle of Tours and how is it superior to that for Jesus?

I'm not one to suggest that any religious beliefs or traditions should be completely immune from analysis. That's why I would disagree that events from the life of the historical Jesus constitute a legitimate arena for contrafactual speculation until evidence is provided to indicate that the historical record is mistaken in this regard.

 

[Wozza]

This question is more theological than historical. The Jesus of the gospels has never even been historically verified. I am of the opinion that Christianity is based upon a mythological Christ. Therefore to debate whether he was crucified or not really is not relevant.

I would like to find something that has been "historically verified." I am amazed that I did not learn what this means in the course of a history degree.

The answer to this exercise is simple: list me 10 historical figures from before 500 AD. Tell me how many contemporary sources attest to that figure's existence, the broad reliability of those sources, the extent to which those sources can be considered history not stylised literary exerices and the gap between the date of the production of the source and the date of our earliest surviving copy.

Then, if you still think that Jesus is not historically verified go around the internet and point out that Pericles, Themistocles, Cleomenes, Sulla and Hannibal are not "historically verified" either.

 

[Hendryk]

Then, if you still think that Jesus is not historically verified go around the internet and point out that Pericles, Themistocles, Cleomenes, Sulla and Hannibal are not "historically verified" either.

Well, to be fair, this isn't AMBOMB-level obtuseness, more like healthy skepticism taken a wee bit too far. It is true there is precious little reliable information about Jesus save for a couple of passing mentions in official documents, which may or may not be about that specific Jesus, and of course the outlandish tales spread by his followers decades after his death. I mean, when I read in a given story how a man walked on water and battled demons, that tends to diminish my trust in said story's reliability as a historical document (you certainly don't read anything like that even in the most enthusiastic sources about, say, Pericles).

Note that I personally don't deny that a Jewish reformer named Jesus lived in the early 1st century CE, that he said a number of stirring things, some of which were much later put to paper though in a garbled way and with apocryphal additions, that he got into more trouble than he could handle and was executed; and that he became the inspiration for a cult which gradually rose to prominence until it became recognizable as the Christianity we're familiar with.

 

[MrP]

Well, to be fair, this isn't AMBOMB-level obtuseness, more like healthy skepticism taken a wee bit too far. It is true there is precious little reliable information about Jesus save for a couple of passing mentions in official documents, which may or may not be about that specific Jesus, and of course the outlandish tales spread by his followers decades after his death. I mean, when I read in a given story how a man walked on water and battled demons, that tends to diminish my trust in said story's reliability as a historical document (you certainly don't read anything like that even in the most enthusiastic sources about, say, Pericles).

Note that I personally don't deny that a Jewish reformer named Jesus lived in the early 1st century CE, that he said a number of stirring things, some of which were much later put to paper though in a garbled way and with apocryphal additions, that he got into more trouble than he could handle and was executed; and that he became the inspiration for a cult which gradually rose to prominence until it became recognizable as the Christianity we're familiar with.

There are a couple of contemporary figures who are described to have similar miraculous powers - I forget the names (I think there was a Simon and an Apollonios, but who knows?), but I recall covering them during my BA . . . or my MA. It all blurs into one. And they had some short-lived cults, IIRC.

 

[Dan1988]

Jesus had to be crucified... He was destined to die in the most horrible and despicable way so to carry the sins of the world...

Not everybody holds this view, Giorgios.

 

[Leo Caesius]

There are a couple of contemporary figures who are described to have similar miraculous powers - I forget the names (I think there was a Simon and an Apollonios, but who knows?), but I recall covering them during my BA . . . or my MA. It all blurs into one. And they had some short-lived cults, IIRC.

Well, Vergil metamorphosized into a magician during the Middle Ages. There are all kinds of interesting tales about him.

Miraculous powers were also attributed to Pythagoras, and he even has the benefit of being the founder of a cult of sorts. Should we suspend any and all discussion about either of these two figures, and leave it up to the theologians?

 

[Wozza]

Well, to be fair, this isn't AMBOMB-level obtuseness, more like healthy skepticism taken a wee bit too far. It is true there is precious little reliable information about Jesus save for a couple of passing mentions in official documents, which may or may not be about that specific Jesus, and of course the outlandish tales spread by his followers decades after his death. I mean, when I read in a given story how a man walked on water and battled demons, that tends to diminish my trust in said story's reliability as a historical document (you certainly don't read anything like that even in the most enthusiastic sources about, say, Pericles).

Note that I personally don't deny that a Jewish reformer named Jesus lived in the early 1st century CE, that he said a number of stirring things, some of which were much later put to paper though in a garbled way and with apocryphal additions, that he got into more trouble than he could handle and was executed; and that he became the inspiration for a cult which gradually rose to prominence until it became recognizable as the Christianity we're familiar with.

Yes, I agree, this is nothing like that AMBOMB epidode.

The Gospels do score well in date terms - they were produced soon after the time and we have early copies - 200AD for Luke for instance.

There is an interesting philosophical discussion about what we should believe in texts - we discount "miracles" because they do not accord with our world view, but is it really rational to do so?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Yes, I agree, this is nothing like that AMBOMB epidode.

I suppose I may have been too hasty with el t. It's just that this same argument comes up every time we discuss this issue and I thought it best to nip it in the bud.

There is an interesting philosophical discussion about what we should believe in texts - we discount "miracles" because they do not accord with our world view, but is it really rational to do so?

Not really. Certainly it cannot be the sole basis for discounting the historicity of a figure. After all, miracles continue to be attributed to figures even in the present day, the historicity of which is beyond denial.

 

[Wozza]

Not really. Certainly it cannot be the sole basis for discounting the historicity of a figure. After all, miracles continue to be attributed to figures even in the present day, the historicity of which is beyond denial.

By beyond denial you mean we can or cannot deny them?

There are plenty of records of miraculous healings in the present day by faith healers. Many are obviously rubbish but others less so.

 

[Leo Caesius]

By beyond denial you mean we can or cannot deny them?

Perhaps the modifier was misplaced. I meant to say that we wouldn't dream of denying the existence of people like Joseph Smith, JPII, or Sai Baba. If civilization is still a going concern in two millennia, then someone very well may.

 

[Wozza]

Perhaps the modifier was misplaced. I meant to say that we wouldn't dream of denying the existence of people like Joseph Smith, JPII, or Sai Baba. If civilization is still a going concern in two millennia, then someone very well may.

Oh, I was referring not to the practitioners but to the truth of the alleged mirales.