Alternatives to the crucifixion story

Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by Sorcerer, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    I would state it differently. "Assuming the description of what took place was as accurate as eye witnesses typically are..."

    There are claims that Jesus studied mysticism in India where he could have learned the technique of slowing his heart rate to near zero. Indeed, there are also claims that he taught the technique to Lazarus (his brother-in-law?) in order to perform a "miracle" (bringing Lazarus back from the dead). Since he "died" overly quickly on the cross, it is not out of the realm of possibility that he went into his trance and fooled the soldiers watching him.

    Just a thought.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    The distinction, I believe, is that both The Buddha and Muhammed had contemporaneous, official reports about them. The only reports of Jesus were written decades after his purported death by direct "followers". Perhaps they were in fact co-conspirators.
    I don't think so. I believe he existed, but not in the mythical manner described in the bible.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Those who won't accept the historicity of Jesus do so perhaps because if He really was who He said He is, did what others say He did, and allowed Himself to be tortured and murdered the way He did - why then, they'd have to deal with it.

    All the historic proof one could ask for is there if one cares to see. I will not guide you to it because it is all easy enough to find if you only wanted to. In other threads the doubters would only dismiss my sources because these sources were written by people who believe. Of course they were! And if your heart and mind were open, you would believe as well.

    Even in our day and age with its forms of torture and murder refined beyond what earlier people could ever imagine, Jesus's scourging and crucifixion stand way beyond the limit of what one man should ever have to endure. So to paraphrase from what I have read: know that these Roman soldiers were the most brutal military men the world had ever yet seen. It was the business of Roman troops to torture, maim, whip and kill, and they were experts at it. They would not have been fooled by any fainting trance, or slowed heartbeats. Did they not put a spear in His side and bleed Him out so thoroughly that water began to flow in place of blood? I would like to see a yogi do that! Jesus endured the most horrific death of which any one has ever heard. Even if He had somehow survived The Passion and Crucifixion, and had been just 'resting' in the tomb from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning, letting His blood 'grow back'. He certainly would not have been up walking around and speaking, and appearing perfectly calm, and inviting Thomas (a few days later) to put his fingers in the nail wounds. I for one, believe, I want to say, 'know', Jesus was and is exactly who He says He was. Deal with it.
     
  8. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    There is nothing mythical about it. Historians will tell you most mythical stories (legends) are written hundreds of years (not decades) after the true facts, and that everything else we accept as historically true from ancient times comes down to us on the thinnest of proofs, scraps of recopied books (scrolls) whose original were written in a time and place removed from the so-called facts.

    In the case of Jesus Christ, mere decades, as I have already said, transpired before some still living eye witnesses reported the facts. Furthermore, in the Near East, especially among the Hebrews, oral history was 'a thing' to use post-modern parlance. For whatever reason, scarcity of paper, ink and scribes (literate person who could actually write) come to mind as very good ones, people generally resorted to the oral tradition. The reason, for instance, we find many Old Testament passages so tedious and repetitive is that repetition is a 'trick' of oral history to ensure correct memorization. It's easy to see how that must be so, is it not? The audience of a rote historian or news reporter (again using a modern term) considered it their right to interrupt and correct if the speaker misspoke. Many of those listening would have heard the report before. Remember there was no CNN back then. Even today we listen to the same news we have heard on the half hour. Why wouldn't they tolerate a 'repeat' days, weeks or months later? Given all that, the veracity of an oral report, decades (not centuries) old told or retold by eye witnesses or those who knew the eye witnesses is quite acceptable, in my opinion.

     
  9. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    I didn't know that. It would certainly be a possibility.
     
  10. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    We are dealing with it by discussing whether there are alternatives to the story as portayed in the bible. That is what you'd expect on a science forum, and let me remind you that I posted this on the comparative religion thread so as not to upset the religionists.

    I've been trying to work out since I came here why people like you bother to post here. It's a science forum, so you'll get lots of people who are interested in facts rather than superstition, and some of them may tear your beliefs apart. You won't convert anyone, and in any case you're not allowed to preach, so your being here is akin to bashing your head against a brick wall: a cause for unhappiness. Why don't you find a nice forum that caters for whatever religious beliefs you have and enjoy the company of the people there?
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,665
    That's precisely the point. I don't think that it's very helpful to take ancient stories of miracles and wonders, stories that are found in just about every culture known and are probably too numerous to count, to assume that they are accurate historical acounts, and then to try to invent ostensibly naturalistic explanations for each of them.

    In my view, it's probably better to think of them as traditional stories, stories that people may once have believed (and in a few cases, like this one, still do) which most likely never literally happened.

    Regarding the Christian crucifixion story specifically, I'm inclined to think that Jesus probably was crucified. Given the messianic excitement that may or may not have surrounded him in his last days, and given his central role in the subsequent Christian myth, the crucifixion would have been a big-time embarassment that probably wouldn't have been invented if it hadn't really happened. Instead, it needed to be explained somehow. It required a story that would redeem it, that would transform it from being a total defeat into being the greatest of victories.
     
  12. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    To a degree, I would like to agree with you. But studying ancient myths with an eye to explaining them scientifically can lead to interesting scientific discoveries. There is the danger that it can also lead to unreasonable relating of discovery to the myth if the "scientist" is too steeped in the mythology.
     
  13. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    What superstition? Have you even read my post? I explained how more than likely, way more than likely the Gospels are fact. Perhaps you are not interested in facts because they may tear your scientific beliefs apart. Who says I want to convert anyone? I am here to discuss science, sometimes, as well as truth and facts. Now I have a question for you? If you don't believe in the crucifixion, along with the rest of the story of Jesus, why are you so intrigued by His tale? Could it be you are looking for something you are lacking?

    I have just reread you OP #1 and, it's not that it is offensive, but so obviously biased. Have you even read The Gospels regarding the crucifixion? Have you read what any scholars say about the possibilities of that murder being a sham? Do you think you are discussing a new topic? This very subject has been under debate since the first Easter Sunday over 2,000 years ago. Even these followers whom you seem to think were his co-conspirators did not believe in the Resurrection at first. many devout men and all out atheists have considered this topic. If you want to side with those who say it was all faked, that is your prerogative, but as far as I know their arguments do not hold up. Why do you pose as a seeker of truth when all you are really doing is seeking to reaffirm your atheism - as futile a project as ever I've heard of- or backhandedly trying to 'rile up the religious folk'? You claim to be interested in science and truth, but looks to me like your interested in slander and trolling. P.S. I won't post in this thread again since you seem to find anyone who disagrees with you to be an intruder. And the only brick wall I see around here is your head.
     
  14. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Just in case anyone has forgotten, this was Post #2 in this thread.
     
  15. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    What a load of rubbish. Discuss science and truth and facts and leave out religion. My bold: good, that's one less.
     
  16. wheeledgoat Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    I believe that, if we are seeking to decode the truth, we must consider how very tainted the Bible is. Much of it was not only passed down through many many years, but it was also carefully edited (and entire books eliminated) at the discretion of the Catholic church, to be in line with what they wanted it to be. Even in today's modern media, which is vastly more bias-proof in comparison, we still need to read between the lines to discover the truth.


    Have you ever worked in a trauma ER? I have. Take my word; a little bit of blood looks like a lot. It would be easy for someone to see "so much blood!" and figure somebody's bled out. Mix in a little bit of sweat, and all of a sudden their blood has turned to water.
     
  17. TheHun Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    I think you should have a cup of nice mint tea and relax. Guys who use some questionably edited writings, don't use their analytical skills--if they have them--and assume they can ram their gods down other people's throats by claiming false authority, namely of said texts are just that: people who have not been able to deal with reality and do not understand the difference between science and religion. they are so scared of having to face their own demons and own up to their own failings so that they need to invent some omnipotent god who screws up all the time and his demon sidekick who is apparently to blame for all those thing that the godhead screwed up in the first place. that leaves men out of the game because like those bible bullies, they can claim that nothing is their fault and hence, no responsibility need be taken.

    So, you being a sorcerer and all can brew us some tea,since you ought to have a handle on that, I bring the chocolates and then we sit down for a good laugh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. KitemanSA Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    624
    Actually, no, I didn't read it. What evidence did your post contain to provide ANY convincing argument that the gospels are "fact" when they were written well after the events they portray, were edited to tell "the same story" and they still contradict themselves?
     
  19. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    What's the point of discussing anything with someone who admits not having read the post, its evidence, and then asks the questions you have already answered. I'm outta here!
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,665
    What you wrote up above was this:

     
  21. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Chocolates and mint tea? A bit sweet for my taste. Now as you know mint tea is also known as Moroccan whisky, so I'll settle for some of the real stuff, if you're paying.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,665
    In the Buddha's case, that most definitely isn't correct.

    In fact, historians still aren't sure exactly when the Buddha lived. Traditional Sri Lankan accounts place him in the 6th century BCE. More recently, Western historians, basing their arguments on various strands of evidence such as Indian Sanskrit accounts, have placed the Buddha about 100 years later, in the 5th century BCE. And most recently, the exciting archaeological discovery of signs of the existence of a very early identifiably Buddhist structure at the site of the Buddha's parinibbana/death have been dated to the 6th century once again. There's still active controversy among scholars on the subject of the buddha's date and there's a large literature on it.

    As far as textual evidence of the Buddha's existence, the earliest extant reference to the Buddha and his Dhamma are found in the emperor Ashoka's pillar edicts dating from the 3rd century BCE (200 to 300 years later). There are no contemporaneous accounts of the Buddha that I know of.

    (Both the Buddhists and the Jains agree that representatives of their traditions met and debated during the lifetime of the Buddha, and Western scholarship is inclined to accept that it's true. But in both cases, the writings that purport to record these encounters were written centuries after the events.)

    The oldest Buddhist religious writings extant today are found in the Pali canon. These were finally put into writing at about the same time that the Christians' New Testament was written (or perhaps a little earlier) after gradually developing as a very elaborate oral tradition, preserved by the monastics, for something like 500 years previously. What might have motivated finally putting that tradition into physical written form was the appearance of new and doctrinally different Mahayana sutras that seem to have been in written form from the very beginning.

    Needless to say, there's all kinds of modern textual scholarship seeking to describe how that oral tradition developed in the early period, often using techniques that were originally created in Biblical Old Testament scholarship. (The OT is another set of writings that developed gradually out of an earlier oral tradition.) Clearly older and newer strands of tradition can be teased out of the Pali Canon. (Everyone agrees that the Vinaya (the monastic rule) was codified comparatively early and that Abhidhamma (an ambitious psycho-philosophical analysis of all possible experience) was a later development.)

    A big difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that Buddhism doesn't revolve around the life events of its founder in quite the same way as Christianity does. The Buddha's importance is primarily as the (re)discoverer and expounder of the Dhamma, the Sasana, the Buddhist teaching. The Buddha even said it about himself: whoever sees the Dhamma (teaching) sees me. In other words, however the tradition originated (and it does show abundant evidence of being the elaboration of a single extraordinary vision), the person who originated it (whoever he might historically have been) was the Buddha.

    That means that Buddhists aren't typically as interested as Christians in the literal historicity of the traditional stories of their religion's founder's life.

    In fact, a whole genre of moral teaching stories developed around the Buddha, called Jatakas, that purport to recount events from the Buddha's previous lives, all with strong Buddhist moral lessons associated with them. Lay Buddhists traditionally grew up with these stories, and they constituted their education in Buddhism, so to speak. (Much of what we associate as Buddhism today, meditation and such, were mostly things for monks.) Modernist Buddhists today give these stories little or no literal historical credence, but they still retain all of their value and charm as teaching stories.

    An odd historical aside: Some of these Buddhist teaching tales found their way into Islamic tradition, and even into medieval Europe. A fascinating example is the medieval Christian story of Barlaam and Josaphat ('Josaphat' is derived from 'Bodhisat') which basically tells the story of the Buddha leaving home and eventually finding enlightenment. Josaphat's spiritual quest so impressed the medieval Christians that the Catholic church declared him a saint! The Buddha is a Catholic saint! True fact.
     
  23. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    I know I said I would quit this thread, but Yazata's last post requires a counter weight.

     

Share This Page