I have a theory that the crown of thorns represent all the false sins placed on the heads of mankind, by the scribes and the pharisees -- the Lawyers of the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_thorns
I'm a little puzzled by your use of the terms 'theory' and 'represent'. 'Represent' sort of implies that someone or someone's have chosen to have the crown be promulgated as that symbol. And I guess your theory is about who is doing that representing and where they're doing it? Are you talking about representation in paintings with it, or are you talking about representation in descriptions in scriptures? So, a painter? A writer? All painters? All writers?
I don't follow. Ostensibly, the crown was made by - and was placed on his head by - a real person, there with Jesus at the time. How can a real act by a real person be a representation of an abstract concept such as "all the false sins placed on the heads of mankind"? That seems to be a form of category error. Category error: the error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category (one example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location, or - in this case - treating a real world action as if it is a abstract symbol).
No The OP's idea of their theory is missing some logical component. Currently, it appears to be a category error. (How can a real act be an abstract representation?) I hope my post(s) will reveal the nature of the category error.
The Romans were brutal when it came to treasonous criminals. Jesus made to claim the crown, the Romans found out about it and tortured and crucified him. The thorns just one of the instruments of torture.
Ukiah: Do you believe that Jesus was a real person, who had a real crown of thorns put on his head? Or are you suggesting that somebody just made up a story about a crown of thorns put on Jesus's head? Your use of the word "represent" suggests that you think somebody was trying to send a message in the form of a fictional tale, or something like that. Do you believe in God, Ukiah? Do you believe that God is evil?
I think the actions and commands regarding Yhwh in the Bible are morally bankrupt. I just do not think those verses are anything to do with a god.
It is possible you're overthinking the difference. Now, let me take a moment to remind that your overthinking the difference would not inherently mean our neighbor is correct. Okay, so, here's a little list: 2018↗, 2019↗, 2020↗, seven weeks later↗, 2021↗. You don't really need to click through; the important point in those posts is a notion of literary crticism. For instance, are you at all familiar with the idea that we ought not let people we know are wrong set the terms and boundaries of discussion? While an important point with diverse contexts of application, in this case it's really straightforward: It's a story, Dave; read it like a storybook. It feels strange to remind that many people use the word "theory" incorrectly, but in the moment, just let it go; our neighbor's use of the word "theory" is not any high priority: I'm uncertain if you're aware, but outside hard science, the standard for an arguable thesis is pretty low, and its value is all in the argument and support. It's how that kind of discourse works. You probably had to write at least a couple papers for lit or history class attending that standard of arguability. Our neighbor's "theory", as such, is an arguable thesis that is generally wrong. It's not that I can't imagine where he's coming from, but the support is largely modern interpretation of latter-period, imposed symbolism. Beyond that, look, once upon a time, someone put a crown of thorns upon someone else's head. By tradition, this was part of mocking a purported King of the Jews. However, if the person who crowned Jesus actually thought or said something to the effect of, "Redeem this, motherfucker," that, indeed, would count, within the literary criticism, as representation. If Jesus had received the crown in some context related to those sins, that, too, would count as representation. What stands out is the particular wording: "all the false sins placed on the heads of mankind, by the scribes and the pharisees". The actual innovation, there, is not the fact of interpreting the crown as a symbol of sin, but the particular sins it is asserted to represent: False sins that were placed on the heads of humanity by the lawyers of the day, the scribes and Pharisees. Inasmuch as it's a story, and should be read that way, our neighbor's telling would transform, and even reject, the Crucifixion, largely nullifying the story as it comes to us. The problem with chasing down a category error is that our neighbor doesn't necessarily care. The "theory"↑, as such, is arbitrary, and the explanation↑ of how it works reads like mockery, even provocateurism. Compared to everything else, you might be overthinking representation.
Thing is, I can't even process the idea without coming to a full stop over the category error. I gotta ask the OP to clarify at least one of those terms.
I suppose the OP could be treating the Passion story as figurative rather than real. But I agree what he or she thinks is rather unclear at the moment.
“I have a theory” usually means, “I have a hunch.” “Represent” in this context could mean: The Bible writer’s metaphor (not historical) What the crown actually meant, so historical and that is what it meant (gods plan to teach us or something) As above I think it could be historical and ties in with “Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum” as a mockery. Everyone mocks him according to Mark, both thieves, Roman soldiers, passers by and priests. Also depends on if you think Jesus is historical, consensus seems to be he was from majority of atheist and Christian Scholars. Mythicists seem to be in a minority, Like Carrier for eg.
Ok, so extreme anguish can cause people to sweat blood? Was it symbolic maybe? Was he wearing a thorny crown already? I've never in all my life ever heard of anyone sweating drops of blood, aside from Jesus. Why the thorn crown? It just seems relevant.
St Luke's gospel does not in fact say it was blood. Just that it fell to the ground "like" drops of blood. It may simply have been imagery, suggesting it was falling profusely in large drops, like somebody bleeding severely.
